Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale

8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale

1/74

UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA

GRADUATE COLLEGE

BEHAVIORAL VALIDATION OF THE ACADEMIC ENTITLEMENT SCALE

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

By

KAROLYN JERRY BUDZEK

Norman, Oklahoma

2007


2/74

BEHAVIORAL VALIDATION OF THE ACADEMIC ENTITLEMENT SCALE

A THESIS APPROVED FOR THEDEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

BY

_____________________________ Nicole Judice Campbell Chair

_____________________________ Ryan Brown

_____________________________ Lara Mayeux


3/74

Copyright by KAROLYN JERRY BUDZEK 2007All Rights Reserved.


4/74

Acknowledgements

Thanks first and foremost to my thesis advisor and mentor, Dr. Nicole

Judice Campbell. This thesis is the culmination of five semesters and almost as

many versions of the Academic Entitlement scale, and I couldnt have imagined a

more supportive mentor or a project with more energy. This project has been

strongly supported by the scale development ideas, coding, and perspective-

taking of Katrin Rentzsch, Chase Martin, Sonal Malhotra, Ryan Hill, Erin DeWitt,

Amber Coombe, and Jennifer Griffith, as well as countless comments at

meetings of both the Southwestern Psychological Association and theSouthwestern Teaching of Psychology. The behavioral validation was possible

through the time and deception of Lauren Simmons, Natalie Nichols, Ashley

Latimer, and Miranda Browning. Im so fortunate to have the most supportive,

draft-reading, pep-talk-giving, just-do-it-already family that I know of; I love you

Mom, Dad, Jennifer, and Evan. Finally, I will always appreciate the help and

guidance of my labmates Jenel Taylor and Shawn Singer, and my committee

members Dr. Ryan Brown and Dr. Lara Mayeux for their time, feedback, and

warmth. Thank you all so much.

iv


5/74

Table of Contents

List of Tables......................................................................................................vi

Figure Captions.................................................................................................vii

Abstract............................................................................................................viii

Introduction.........................................................................................................1

Narcissism..............................................................................................2

Psychological Entitlement......................................................................5

Academic Entitlement.............................................................................7

Method..............................................................................................................14

Participants...........................................................................................15

Procedure.............................................................................................16

Self-Report Measures...........................................................................20

Results..............................................................................................................22

Data Screening......................................................................................22

Zero-Order Correlations........................................................................25

Multiple Regression Analyses...............................................................25

Discussion........................................................................................................31

References.......................................................................................................36

Appendix A: Academic Entitlement scale.........................................................43

Appendix B: Academic task..............................................................................44

Appendix C: Negative feedback condition.......................................................50

Appendix D: Evaluation packet........................................................................51

Appendix E: Study script and debriefing..........................................................54

Tables 1 4......................................................................................................61

Figure 1.............................................................................................................65

v


6/74

List of Tables

Table 1. Correlations between Academic Entitlement subscales of Responsibility

and Expectations and related variables across two samples.

Table 2. Comparing correlations between three measures of Entitlement.

Table 3. Correlations between vignette measures and constructs used as

predictor variables.

Table 4. Correlations between Academic Entitlement subscales of Responsibility

and Expectations and related variables.

vi


7/74

Figure Captions

Figure 1. Feedback Condition, AE Responsibility predict Evaluation of

Experiment, Experimenter.

vii


8/74

Abstract

The current research provides further validation of the Academic Entitlement

scale using a false-feedback paradigm in a laboratory setting. Participants

completed a timed academic task, and received either no feedback or negative

feedback. Participants then evaluated both the academic task and the

experimenter. Feedback condition was the only significant predictor of

experiment (task) evaluation, and the Academic Entitlement subscale indicating

an entitled lack of Responsibility was the only significant predictor of

experimenter (person) evaluation. These results validate the AcademicEntitlement scale as a measure that predicts interpersonal aggression in the form

of course evaluations. Implications and future directions are discussed.

viii


9/74

Behavioral Validation of the Academic Entitlement Scale

Student incivility is a phenomenon regularly encountered by university

instructors (Boice, 1996; Meyers, 2003; Tiberius & Flak, 1999; Tom, 1998).

Uncivil student behaviors during lecture include reading a newspaper, talking,

answering mobile phones, sending wireless messages, arriving late to class, and

leaving class early. Uncivil student behaviors also are evidenced in student-

instructor interactions, such as emails, calls, or face-to-face conversations that

are demanding, too informal, or presumptuous. Beyond answering the

professional question of how to respond to uncivil student behaviors, identifyingthe sources of student incivility will allow both researchers and instructors to

better understand and address these behaviors.

Several situational factors may contribute to uncivil student behaviors.

Diffusion of responsibility or perceived anonymity in large classes or at large

universities (Barron & Yechiam, 2002; Wulff, Nyquist, & Abbott, 1987) represent

a main factor in student incivility. The daily stressors of academic rigor and

social changes related to the transition from high school to college (Kerr,

Johnson, Gans, & Krumrine, 2004; Santiago-Rivera & Bernstein, 1996) may

exacerbate uncivil behaviors among new college students. Research in

educational psychology offers evidence that students behave poorly because of

the impersonal nature of large classes. Students may feel as if they are merely a

face in the crowd, and engage in distracting, uncivil behavior more frequently

than in smaller courses (Carbone, 1998, 1999).

1


10/74

Student incivility is predicted also by individual differences, including

demographics, construal of the situation, and personality. For example, gender

of both the student and the professor affect students timely completion of a

course requirement. Specifically, male students delayed completion more often

than female students overall, and more often when the professor was female

(Louie & Tom, 2005). In a recent study, Gump (2006) reported that students

attitudes regarding the importance of attendance predicted their actual

attendance. The purpose of this research is to move beyond these types of

predictors to identify an individual difference proposed to play a key role instudent incivility: sense of entitlement to an education.

Narcissism

The broader individual difference most related to a sense of entitlement is

narcissism. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is characterized by self-importance,

grandiosity, and a sense of entitlement (APA, 1994). Over the past few decades,

personality and social psychologists have studied non-clinical or normal

narcissism using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979,

1981). The NPI identifies narcissistic attitudes in the population at large, and

high scores on this measure do not serve as a clinical diagnosis. This well-

studied construct provides a theoretical and empirical basis for identifying a

specific individual difference that can account for student incivility.

Narcissists have an inflated positive self-concept and possess a myriad of

strategies to maintain this precariously high self-image. They are preoccupied

with pervasive fantasies of power or fame, are in constant need of external

2


11/74

affirmations, and employ numerous tactics to minimize the impact of negative

evaluations, most commonly through devaluation (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001).

Much of the empirical investigation of narcissism that is relevant to

incivility involves research on self-enhancement, social comparison, and

interpersonal relations. Individuals who possess high scores in narcissism

reinforce their highly positive self-concept with self-aggrandizing, other-

derogating responses to feedback that threatens their self-concept (Kernis &

Sun, 1994; Smalley & Stake, 1996; South, Oltmanns, & Turkheimer, 2003).

These reactions include greater aggression (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998);derogation of others, including friends (Brown & Gallagher, 1992; Fein &

Spencer, 1997); exaggeration of positive traits (Beauregard & Dunning, 1998,

Campbell, Rudich, & Sedikides, 2002); and less likeability (Vohs & Heatherton,

2004).

Narcissists are vigilant to opportunities for self-enhancement (Morf &

Rhodewalt, 2001) and seem to possess a pervasive need for positive self-regard

which they are never able to satisfy. This drive to self-enhance is doomed to fail

mainly because they are using ineffective interpersonal strategies. Praise and

success feedback contribute to the narcissists grandiosity, and are accepted.

Criticism and failure feedback, however, are barred from threatening the

narcissists self-concept through devaluation of the person or situation providing

negative feedback (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). This defensive strategy allows

narcissists to remain intrapersonally unaffected by negative feedback at a cost to

their interpersonal interactions.

3


12/74

Self-enhancement at all costs may result in detrimental effects on

narcissists social relationships (Carroll & Hoenigmann-Stovall, 1996). In a study

conducted by Campbell and his colleagues, narcissists and non-narcissists

received either success or failure feedback after either an independent or

interdependent task. Narcissists self-enhanced across all conditions and

strategies. Non-narcissists exhibited more strategic flexibility and

noncomparatively self-enhanced they chose strategies that derogated the task

importance as opposed to derogating a partner (Campbell, Reeder, Sedikides, &

Elliot, 2000).Some evidence suggests that narcissists are aware of their less than

stellar interpersonal traits. While individuals with high self-esteem perceive

themselves as better than average on different attributes, narcissists only

reported this self-enhancing response on agentic traits, such as leadership or

intelligence. Narcissists did not rate themselves higher than average on

communal traits such as emotional stability, agreeableness, or morality

(Campbell, Rudich, & Sedikides, 2002).

Most individuals, narcissistic, entitled, or otherwise, will look to others for

downward social comparisons under threat (e.g. Feather & Simon, 1971).

Constantly striving to increase their self-worth, individuals high in narcissism

experience stronger affect than non-narcissists after social comparisons; positive

affect for downward social comparisons, and hostility for upward social

comparisons (Bogart, Benotsch, & Pavlovic, 2004). Individuals high on the NPI

subscale of entitlement/exploitativeness (EE, as identified by Emmons, 1987),

4


13/74

when compared to individuals high only in overall narcissism, experienced an

even greater boost to positive affect following a downward social comparison,

suggesting that entitlement/exploitativeness in particular may be the aspect of

narcissism most relevant for negative interpersonal interactions.

The breadth of non-clinical (normal) narcissism literature provides an

empirical framework in which to examine incivility in a laboratory setting.

Narcissists reactions to success and failure feedback may model student

incivility in the classroom. Entitlement, an individual difference more closely

related to student incivility, was first tapped by the aforementionedentitlement/exploitativeness subscale of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. A

more recent measure of entitlement is the Psychological Entitlement Scale (PES;

Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004).

Psychological Entitlement

Psychological entitlement is a relatively new construct that serves to

replace the entitlement/exploitativeness (EE) subscale of the Narcissistic

Personality Inventory (NPI). The EE subscale regularly predicts different or

stronger outcomes than the other subscales, and researchers have noted that

EE is more central to the construct of maladaptive narcissism than the total NPI

(e.g. Wink, 1991). Use of the nine-item Psychological Entitlement Scale (PES,

Campbell et al., 2004) alleviates many of these concerns about measuring

entitlement with the NPI. Items on the PES include If I were on the Titanic, I

would deserve to be on the first lifeboat! and I feel entitled to more of

everything.

5


14/74

High scores on PES predict a host of self-serving behavioral outcomes

beyond the EE subscale of the NPI (Campbell et al., 2004). Participants scores

on PES predict perceptions of deserved salary, competitive resource-depleting

decisions, and self-oriented romantic relationship attitudes. In one study,

participants were instructed to take as many pieces of candy as they felt they

deserved as a reward for participating in an experiment. The bucket of candy

was allegedly for children participating in developmental psychology research,

and participants with high PES scores took significantly more pieces of candy

from the bucket (Campbell et al., 2004, Study 5). The Psychological EntitlementScale is also reliably related to unforgiveness, predicting forgiveness attitudes,

greater insistence on repayment, and unforgiving responses to hypothetical

transgressions (Exline, Baumeister, Bushman, Campbell, & Finkel, 2004).

Psychological entitlement specifically predicts aggressive responses to

negative academic feedback. In order to examine entitled reactions to ego

threat, participants received negative comments that were ostensibly handwritten

by another participant evaluating an essay the participants had just written

(Campbell et al., 2004, Study 9). After receiving this feedback, participants were

permitted to set the noise intensity and duration of white noise that this other

participant could receive during a competitive task. High PES scores predicted

more aggressive (i.e. louder intensity, longer duration) use of participants sound

weapon. While narcissism as measured by the Narcissistic Personality

Inventory predicts aggressive responses to criticism (Bushman & Baumeister,

6


15/74

1998), PES predicted aggressive responses in this experiment beyond that of the

entitlement/exploitativeness subscale of the NPI (Campbell et al., 2004, Study 9).

Among the negative outcomes predicted by the Psychological Entitlement

Scale, reactions to ego threat are particularly relevant to the present research

explaining student incivility. Building on extant entitlement research, the present

research outlines the development of a more specific predictor of inappropriate

student behaviors, one that combines elements of entitlement with pertinent

areas of the academic domain.

Academic Entitlement Inappropriate student behaviors should be predicted by a function of the

interaction of a students entitled attitudes and personality with the academic

environment. Proposing a new construct to explain student incivility requires

both overlapping with relevant constructs such as psychological entitlement and

capturing unique variance pertaining to the academic situation. The construct of

academic entitlement , defined as the tendency to possess an expectation of

success without personal responsibility for achieving that success, captures this

combination of individual and situational factors.

Academic Entitlement scale development. The academic entitlement

scale (AE; Budzek & Campbell, 2007; Appendix A) consists of fifteen items in two

subscales, Responsibility and Expectations . The ten-item Responsibility

subscale focuses on students and professors responsibilities in the learning

process, and includes items such as For group assignments, it is acceptable to

take a back seat and let others do most of the work if I am busy, and If I miss

7


16/74

class, it is my responsibility to get the notes (reverse coded). The Responsibility

items are worded such that a high score indicates an entitled lack of personal

responsibility. Alphas for the Responsibility subscale range from .83 to .84. The

five-item Expectations subscale focuses on students expectations of professors

policies and grading strategies and includes items such as My professors should

curve my grade if I am close to the next letter grade, and Professors must be

entertaining to be good. A high score on these Expectations items indicates

students specific, relatively inflexible, expectations about policies and

interactions with professors. Alphas for the Expectations subscale range from .66 to .69. The two subscales correlate with each other, ( r s = .15, .25) but do not

overlap, and are not summed together.

An initial pool of sixty-nine items was narrowed to fifteen items as a result

of several exploratory analyses, including maximum likelihood factor analysis and

principal components analysis. Of the remaining fifteen items, a two-factor

solution fit the data better than a one-factor solution, using structural equation

modeling in SAS to perform confirmatory factor analyses (Budzek & Campbell,

2007).

Initial construct validity. The Academic Entitlement subscales correlate

with related measures (Table 1). The Responsibility subscale correlates

positively with psychological entitlement ( r = .37, .32; Campbell et al., 2004), the

entitlement/exploitativeness subscale of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory

(r = .23; Emmons, 1987), and irresolute academic strategies ( r = .25; Cantwell &

Moore, 1996). Responsibility correlates negatively with a host of generally

8


17/74

positive constructs, including personal self-efficacy ( r = -.61, -.51, Paulhus,

1983), attitudes toward forgiveness ( r = -.35, Brown, 2003), agreeableness

(r = -.32; John & Srivastava, 1999), conscientiousness ( r = -.38; John &

Srivastava, 1999), need for cognition ( r = -.28; Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984)

and self-esteem ( r = -.27; Rosenberg, 1989).

This pattern of results follows that of psychological entitlement and

narcissistic entitlement/exploitativeness (Table 2), with several notable

exceptions. First, the negative relationship between personal self-efficacy and

the Responsibility subscale is stronger than for other measures of entitlement(Table 2), indicating that an external locus of control is a key component of

academic entitlement. The negative correlation with self-esteem suggests that

academic entitlement is a compensatory, protective strategy separate from

narcissism, which typically has a small positive correlation with self-esteem

(r = .15; Table 2). Additionally, Responsibility correlates negatively with need for

cognition, while psychological entitlement does not (Table 2), suggesting that

academic entitlement captures a more cognitive or academic construct, as

intended.

The Expectations subscale correlates positively with Psychological

Entitlement ( r = .34, .24, Table 1), irresolute academic strategies ( r = .27), and

inflexible academic strategies ( r = .21, Cantwell & Moore, 1996). Students

entitled Expectations scores are not linked with as many published scales as

students entitled Responsibility scores, but have a unique contribution to

explaining inappropriate student behavior (Budzek & Campbell, 2007).

9


18/74

Predicting students predicted behavior. In addition to the Academic

Entitlement scales relationships with published constructs, the newly developed

scale was used to predict students own ratings of inappropriate and appropriate

student behaviors. A new vignette measure was created to assess students

perceptions of different behaviors relevant to the university situation. In eight

vignettes about academic situations, students rated multiple response options

identified by instructors as inappropriate or appropriate. The participants rated

both the appropriateness of each behavior and the likelihood they themselves

would engage in the behavior (Budzek & Campbell, 2007).In order to ensure the participants were operating in similar stimulus

space, a vignette measure was developed to identify specific uncivil student

behaviors. We generated academic scenarios thought to evoke entitled

behaviors and collected student responses to open-ended questions. Open-

ended statements that appeared to capture a continuum of student responses

were selected and retained to administer to participants in the first sample

(N = 362).

The initial vignette measure consisted of eight vignettes with eight to

twelve responses per situation. Students rated each of these multiple response

options with respect to the likelihood they would engage in this behavior as well

as the appropriateness of this behavior. Subject-matter experts also rated the

vignette responses on appropriateness using a six-point Likert-type scale from

zero to five. The experts were instructors recruited from the psychology

10


19/74

department, with teaching experience ranging from several months to thirty-

seven years.

The twenty-six items across four vignettes selected for use in subsequent

analyses were identified based on rater consensus: highly inappropriate ( M < 1,

14 items) and highly appropriate ( M > 4, 12 items). These items possess a

reliable factor structure, as indicated by their respective eigenvalues and

Cronbachs alphas. The fourteen inappropriate responses include items such as

I would complain to the professor who misled me! ( = 4.627, Cronbachs

= .856). The twelve appropriate responses include items such as I wouldanswer the questions to the best of my ability ( = 5.347, Cronbachs = .808).

Each set of items were averaged to form four scores: students likelihood ratings

of inappropriate items, students likelihood ratings of appropriate items, students

appropriateness ratings of inappropriate items, and students appropriateness

ratings of appropriate items. These four scores were then predicted by related

measures, including the Academic Entitlement subscales (Budzek & Campbell,

2007).

Multiple regression analysis was used to predict students likelihood and

students appropriateness ratings for inappropriate and appropriate items. In

addition to Responsibility and Expectations scores, related variables such as

personal self-efficacy (Paulhus, 1983), strategic flexibility (Cantwell & Moore,

1996), and psychological entitlement (Campbell et al., 2004) were considered as

predictors (Table 3). Multiple regression analyses were conducted with students

ratings of the likelihood of inappropriate items, students ratings of the

11


20/74

appropriateness of inappropriate items, students ratings of the likelihood of

appropriate items, and students ratings of the appropriateness of appropriate

items.

When predicting the likelihood of appropriate items, two significant

variables accounted for half of the variance, R 2adj = .50, F (2, 376) = 186.15, p

< .001. Students ratings of the likelihood of appropriate items were strongly

related to students appropriateness ratings for appropriate items ( = .629,

t (378) = 14.91, p < .001) and the Academic Entitlement subscale of

Responsibility ( = -.137, t (378) = 3.24, p = .001).In a separate analysis predicting students ratings of appropriateness for

appropriate items, three significant variables accounted for almost one-third of

the variance, R 2adj = .29, F (3, 374) = 51.53, p < .001. Students appropriateness

ratings for appropriate items were negatively related to the Academic Entitlement

subscale of Responsibility ( = -.352, t (377) = 6.62, p < .001), and positively

related to both inflexible academic strategies ( = .201, t (377) = 4.62, p < .001)

and personal self-efficacy ( = .205, t (377) = 3.85, p < .001).

When predicting the likelihood of inappropriate items, three significant

variables accounted for over half of the variance, R 2adj = .57, F (3, 368) = 166.34,

p < .001. Students ratings of the likelihood of inappropriate items were positively

related to students appropriateness ratings for inappropriate items ( = .533,

t (371) = 14.05, p < .001), the Academic Entitlement subscale of Expectations

( = .282, t (371) = 7.36, p < .001), and irresolute academic strategies ( = .146,

t (371) = 4.07, p < .001).

12


21/74

In a separate analysis predicting students ratings of appropriateness for

inappropriate items, three significant variables accounted for almost one-third of

the variance, R 2adj = .29, F (3, 369) = 50.73, p < .001). Students appropriateness

ratings for inappropriate items were positively related to the Academic

Entitlement subscale of Expectations ( = .343, t (371) = 7.55, p < .001),

the Academic Entitlement subscale of Responsibility ( = .220, t (371) =

4.74, p < .001), and psychological entitlement ( = .201, t (371) = 4.24, p < .001).

Summarized, these analyses show that the Academic Entitlement

subscales correlate as expected with related constructs (Table 1, Table 2). Thesubscales of Expectations and Responsibility correlate with measures that

capture related constructs, such as psychological entitlement and confusion

about academic strategies. The subscale measuring students entitled lack of

Responsibility also correlates negatively with scales that capture positively

viewed constructs, such as self-esteem, agreeableness, conscientiousness,

forgiveness, need for cognition, and self-efficacy.

Further, the Academic Entitlement subscales predict students judgments

of the appropriateness of various inappropriate and appropriate student

behaviors, such that students who endorse entitled Responsibility and

Expectations items are more likely to disagree with instructors ratings of

appropriateness. That is, students with high Academic Entitlement scores are

more likely to rate appropriate items as inappropriate and inappropriate items as

appropriate. The appropriateness judgments then predict students ratings of the

likelihood that they themselves would engage in these inappropriate and

13


22/74

appropriate behaviors. When predicting the likelihood of engaging in

inappropriate behaviors in particular, the Academic Entitlement subscale of

Expectations remains a significant predictor in addition to students ratings of the

appropriateness of inappropriate academic behaviors. That is, students with high

scores indicating entitled Expectations report higher likelihood of engaging in

inappropriate academic behaviors.

The current research proposes a behavioral validation of the Academic

Entitlement scale. Students who possess high levels of academic entitlement

should respond differently than non-entitled students to negative academicfeedback. In the context of the classroom environment, students may respond

with derogation of the instructor or the course material on course evaluations.

The proposed study will reproduce these reactions in a laboratory setting by

soliciting participants evaluations of the experimenter and the experiment

materials.

Method

Prior research suggests that academic entitlement is an individual

difference that predicts students reports of their attitudes and predicted behavior.

The proposed study will examine relationships between students behaviors and

the newly developed scale. Specifically, reactions to feedback especially

negative feedback should be different for students who possess high levels of

academic entitlement compared to non-entitled students. Academic entitlement

has close conceptual connections with psychological entitlement (as measured

by PES, Campbell et al., 2004, r s range from .25 to .34 for both subscales across

14


23/74

two samples) and self-efficacy (as measured by the personal efficacy subscale of

a locus of control measure, Paulhus, 1983, r s for the Responsibility subscale

range from -.52 to -.58). While these correlations are helpful for establishing

convergent validity, the Academic Entitlement scale should predict uncivil student

behaviors beyond both psychological entitlement and self-efficacy.

A review of the narcissism literature offered few commonly used

paradigms that could be relevant for academic entitlement. Many of the

experimental procedures involving failure feedback are used in an interpersonal

context (e.g., Campbell, Reeder, Sedikides, & Elliot, 2000; Farwell & Wohlwend-Lloyd, 1998; Morf & Rhodewalt, 1993; South, Oltmanns, & Turkheimer, 2003).

Evidence exists linking narcissism and entitlement to negative interpersonal

outcomes (e.g., Campbell et al., 2000), but academic entitlement will be best

validated in an achievement context as ecologically relevant as possible. In

many of these paradigms, participants are given the opportunity to derogate or

aggress against a confederate. In real-world student incivility, however, students

derogate the course material and the instructors through their inappropriate

behaviors. Thus, in the current study, the main dependent variables were

participants evaluations of an academic task they completed and their

evaluations of the experimenter who administered the academic task.

Participants

Participants were undergraduates ( N = 185) enrolled in introductory

psychology at a large Midwestern state university in the United States. Data

were collected across two semesters; early in a fall semester and late in a spring

15


24/74

semester. All students received credit toward completion of a course

requirement.

Procedure

Upon signing up for the study using an online experiment management

system, participants were informed that they would participate in two brief and

unrelated studies that were conducted together due to their short length. For the

first study, titled Personality Correlates, participants were instructed to complete

a series of brief individual difference measures online. Upon arriving at the

laboratory, participants received and completed informed consent for the secondstudy, entitled Academic Task Calibration. Participants were told that the

researchers are collecting normative data on a task that is highly indicative of

academic success, and uses verbal ability to measure intelligence, much the

same as the ACT (Appendix B). Prior to their arrival, participants were randomly

assigned to receive either no feedback or negative feedback on the academic

task. After explanation of the purpose of the task, participants were given a

folder that contained the test materials.

Participants in both conditions completed two sections of the reading

comprehension portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test. The answer portion of

this standardized test was modified from previous multiple choice to short-answer

essay format. The rationale for this change is twofold: First, it allowed

participants to perceive the grading of this task as more subjective. Additionally,

it allowed the experimenter to include vague comments (in the negative feedback

condition; Appendix C) supporting the score on the answer sheet itself.

16


25/74

Following the twelve minute time limit, the experimenter collected the

participants folders with their responses. Participants in both conditions were

told to wait while the experimenter graded their results and entered them into a

database. The experimenter left the room for five minutes in all conditions.

Negative feedback condition . After completing the objective academic

task, participants in the negative feedback condition received a folder containing

a fictitious data sheet explaining the national norms on this test (Appendix C).

This sheet also informed participants that they scored in the 33 rd percentile based

on their performance. In addition to the computer printout of their scores, thefolder contained their answer sheet containing gratuitous underlining and circling

of their responses, as well as comments from the grader throughout.

Specifically, the following phrases were written on the answer sheet itself in red

pen: unclear, good start, eh, close but not quite, and more.

No feedback condition . After completing the objective academic task,

participants in the no feedback condition were told that their data would be

analyzed and available at the end of the semester.

Evaluation measures. As the experimenter returned (in both conditions)

from ostensibly grading and entering participants test scores, she distributed

slips of paper requesting students email addresses. Participants were told that

their data would be analyzed with all of the students data who completed the

task at this university, and available at the end of the semester. The

experimenter explained that the participants may fill out this additional sheet if

they were interested in receiving the average scores of students at their

17


26/74

university. Interest in obtaining additional information was coded as a 0 if

participants left the form blank and as a 1 if participants provided their email

address.

Next, the experimenter explained that the experiment was chosen for

evaluation by the Psychology Department. Specifically, participants were told

that the Psychology Departments evaluations of experiments and experimenters

are just like the College of Arts and Sciences evaluations of courses and

professors. Participants in all conditions completed a three-page evaluation

packet consisting of the Positive Affect / Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS,Watson & Clark, 1994), an experiment evaluation sheet (Appendix D), and the

Self-Attributes Questionnaire (SAQ, Pelham & Swann, 1989). The PANAS

assesses participants current affective state, and as such will be used both as a

manipulation check (i.e., participants in the negative feedback condition should

have higher negative affect that participants who did not receive feedback) and

as a covariate in further analyses.

The experiment evaluation sheet asks the participants to evaluate both the

task and the experimenter. Following Stucke & Sporer (2002), four items

addressed the tasks validity, accuracy, fairness, and suitability for predicting

academic success, and four items addressed the experimenters usefulness,

helpfulness, competence, and the accuracy of their grading (Appendix D). These

eight items were scored on a seven-point Likert-type scale. Similar to course

evaluations, participants were also provided with open-ended comment sections

both about the task and about the experimenter. Check boxes after these

18


27/74

comment sections ostensibly allowed participants to prioritize their responses in

reports sent to a departmental committee organized to evaluate research. The

SAQ measures participants self-evaluation relative to other college students

their age. Use of this measure is somewhat exploratory, to investigate the

potential self-protective strategy of compensatory self-enhancement following an

ego-threat (e.g. Study 3, Farwell & Wohlwend-Lloyd, 1998).

Finally, after participants completed the experiment evaluation sheet, the

experimenter requested a personal favor from them. Participants responses to

this request may further distinguish negative attitudes toward the task fromnegative attitudes toward the individual experimenter. Specifically, the

experimenter explained that she is collecting pilot data for her personal research.

Since, as the experimenter explained, she is not able to offer experiment credit

for participation, she cannot recruit participants using the online experiment sign-

up system. Participants were requested to stay an additional fifteen minutes or

so if they were willing to volunteer to participate in the pilot study. It was

possible for all participants to comply with this request, as the time requested

was within the time allotted for experiment completion. Helping behavior was

coded as a 1 if participants agreed to stay in order to assist the experimenter

and as a 0 if participants refused to help the experimenter. Only 12 (7.6%)

participants refused to assist the experimenter, however, and so this variable is

not discussed further. 1

1 Unequal sample sizes to this extent (12:1) violate robustness too much to derive much from thefindings. For posterity, helping scores were marginally significantly predicted by AcademicContingencies of Self-Worth ( e = 0.30, Wald 2 = 4.15, p = .042), such that participants whoseself-worth is contingent upon academic success were more likely to refuse the experimentersrequest for assistance, R 2 = 0.13. This trend is only present for participants receiving nofeedback ( e = 0.18, Wald 2 = 3.10, p = .078), R 2 = 0.21; among participants receiving negative

19


28/74

After this request and participants subsequent responses, the

experimenter began the debriefing process by probing participants for a check of

the manipulation, suspicion, and prior knowledge of the experiment. The true

purpose of the experiment was thoroughly explained and questions and

comments were addressed before participants were thanked and released.

Self-Report Measures

Participants completed these measures online before arriving for the

experiment. Collection of these measures allows their use in predicting the

outcome measures described above. Academic Entitlement. The Academic Entitlement scale (AE, Budzek &

Campbell, 2007) captures students expectation of academic success with a lack

of personal responsibility for achieving that success. The scale consists of fifteen

items in two subscales scored on a six-point Likert-type scale. The first

subscale, Responsibility , consists of ten items, and focuses on students and

professors responsibilities in the learning process. An example item is It is

ultimately my professors responsibility to make sure that I learn the material of a

course. High scores on the subscale indicate an entitled lack of personal

responsibility. The second subscale, Expectations , consists of five items, and

focuses on students expectations of professors policies and grading strategies.

An example item is I expect my professors to make their class notes available

for me. High scores on the subscale indicate entitled expectations about

professors and course policies.

feedback ( e = 0.43, Wald 2 = 1.17, p = .280), Academic CSW was unrelated to the likelihood of complying with the experimenters request for assistance, R 2 = 0.08. Again, these findings areunreliable (especially when split by feedback condition, reducing the N by half) due to grosslyunequal sample sizes.

20


29/74

Psychological Entitlement . The Psychological Entitlement Scale (PES,

Campbell et al., 2004) captures the pervasive sense that one deserves more and

is entitled to more than others are. The scale consists of nine items scored on a

six-point Likert-type scale. An example item is If I were on the Titanic, I would

deserve to be in the first lifeboat!

Grandiosity . The State-Trait Grandiosity Scale (Rosenthal, 2005)

captures narcissistic arrogance and grandiosity without including the classic

conceptualization of self-esteem (i.e., Rosenberg, 1989). The scale consists of

sixteen adjectives scored on a seven-point Likert-type scale. Example adjectivesinclude superior, envied, and glorious.

Personal Self-Efficacy . The Spheres of Control Scale (Paulhus, 1983)

captures perceived locus of control in three main spheres of life, one of which is

personal achievement. The Personal Control subscale consists of ten items

scored on a seven-point Likert-type scale. An example item is I can usually

achieve what I want if I work hard for it.

Contingencies of Self-Worth . The Contingencies of Worth Scale (Crocker

& Wolfe, 2001) captures self-esteem in specific domains in which college

students invest their self-esteem, three of which are academics, others approval,

and outperforming others. Each subscale consists of five items scored on a

seven-point Likert-type scale. The Academic Competence subscale includes

items such as I feel better about myself when I know Im doing well

academically. The Approval from Others subscale contains items such as My

self-esteem depends on the opinions others hold of me. The Competition

21


30/74

subscale is comprised of items such as I feel worthwhile when I perform better

than others on a task or skill.

Need for Cognition. The Need for Cognition scale (Cacioppo & Petty,

1982; Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984) captures the tendency to engage in and

enjoy effortful cognitive endeavors. The short form consists of eighteen items

scored on a six-point Likert-type scale (Cacioppo et al., 1984). An example item

is, I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems.

Results

Data Screening Variables were transformed to standardized z-scores before analysis, a

method preferred for continuous variables, as it is likely to produce linearity,

normality, and homoscedasticity, while typically reducing the number of outliers

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). In normal data, one percent of scores should be

greater than three standard deviations above the mean. Instead of deleting or

trimming these outliers, summary scores of | z |>3 were Winsorized (i.e. adjusted

to the next highest score, typically | z |=3; a more conservative approach than the

20% transformation recommended by Wilcox, 2003). This affected only 18

scores, three or fewer each from eight variables. 2 The potential problems

associated with missing data (e.g. systematic error) were avoided through the

use of pair-wise deletion in SPSS. That is, a participants data were not included

2 Specifically, the following scores were Windsorized: 3 low scores from the Certainty SAQ, 3high scores on negative affect (measured with PANAS), 3 low scores on Experimenter Evaluation, 3 low scores on Academic Entitlement Expectations , 2 low scores on CompetitiveContingencies of Self Worth, 2 low scores on total points earned on the academic task, 1 lowscore on Academic Contingencies of Self Worth, and 1 high score on Academic EntitlementResponsibility .

22


31/74

in any computation for which data are missing. 3

Summary scores were computed for each of the established scales,

including academic entitlement. Scores on the Responsibility subscale

(M = 2.16, SD = 0.65) and the Expectations subscale ( M = 4.69, SD = 0.95)

possessed internal consistency ( = .71 and = .66, respectively), and were not

significantly correlated, r (118) = .15, p = .109. 4 Results of reliability analyses for

each summary score are reported in Table 3.

Participants responses on the academic task consisted of ten short-

answer questions. These scores were graded by two trained coders, using afour-point key yielding a score from 0 to 3 per question, where 0 indicates no

answer and 3 indicates the correct answer. Scores between raters were highly

correlated, suggesting strong inter-rater reliability, r (179) = .981, p < .001.

3 Due to novice errors in data management, a subset of the online responses to individualdifference measures was not linked to study participants. Therefore, all analyses involving thepersonality measures (including Academic Entitlement) are based on 122 participants. Only 116participants completed all 15 Academic Entitlement items, due to participants declining to provideanswers for various Academic Entitlement items. Null responses were distributed throughout thescale, although the most often declined item was The price of my tuition buys me course credit,with n = 118 participants providing a response.4 This lack of correlation differed by semester. AE scores were related for participants fromSpring 2007, r (33) = .331, p = .052, but unrelated for participants from Fall 2007, r (83) = .059,

p = .593. The AE scale was on the prescreening for both semesters, so I examined therelationship between AE1 Responsibility and AE2 Expectations in these larger data sets to guardagainst errors due to small sample size. In prescreening Spring 2007, AE1 Responsibility (M = 2.26, SD = 0.82) and AE2 Expectations (M = 4.51, SD = 1.02) were positively correlated,r (440) = .207, p < .001. In prescreening Fall 2007, the relationship between AE1 Responsibility (M = 1.94, SD = 0.70) and AE2 Expectations (M = 4.67, SD = 1.13) was still positively correlated,r (937) = .303, p < .001. These means as well as the shape of the distributions suggest mildsemester effects in both AE1 Responsibility , t (1382) = 7.47, p < .05, and AE2 Expectations ,

t (1388) = -2.61, p < .05, suggesting that entitled Responsibility scores were higher for students intheir second semester of college, but entitled Expectations scores were lower for students in their second semester of college. This interpretation was tested by excluding upperclass studentsfrom the analysis (60% of Spring 2007 prescreening participants and 80% of Fall 2007prescreening participants were first-year students). AE1 Responsibility scores in Spring 2007(M = 2.29, SD = 0.84) were significantly higher than in Fall 2007 ( M = 1.91, SD = 0.68),t (1020) = 7.48, p < .05. However, AE2 Expectations scores in Spring 2007 ( M = 4.55,SD = 1.02) were not significantly different from those in Fall 2007 ( M = 4.65, SD = 1.13),t (1025) = 1.32, p > .05. Longitudinal cohort changes in Academic Entitlement will definitely beexamined in future research.

23


32/74

Scores for each question were averaged between raters and totaled to form an

overall score for the academic task ( M = 16.85, SD = 4.33). Participants overall

scores for the academic task ranged from 6.5 to 27. Additionally, the number of

words participants wrote for each question ( M = 10.21, SD = 3.09) was collected

as an estimate of effort and verbal ability. Both overall score and word count

were included as potential covariates in regression analyses, but failed to obtain

significance in any of the equations.

Of the participant demographics collected in the departmental

prescreening, sex of participant was examined with two-independent-samplet -tests to identify potential sex-based differences on either the Expectations or

Responsibility subscales of the Academic Entitlement scale. No difference was

found between the Expectations scores of male ( n = 31, M = 4.57, SD = 1.09)

and female ( n = 91, M = 4.76, SD = 0.96) students, t (120) = 0.96, p > .05, but

male students ( M = 2.19, SD = 0.59) had significantly higher scores than female

students ( M = 1.85, SD = 0.59) on the Responsibility subscale of Academic

Entitlement, t (118) = 2.79, p = .006. While some studies using measures related

to narcissism do not show sex differences, Narcissistic Personality Disorder is

more commonly diagnosed in males. Sex was included in all regression

analyses as a potential predictor.

Additionally, a series of pairwise comparisons using the Tukey multiple

comparison procedure were conducted comparing the means of all variables

collected in the lab portion of the study based on which experimenter conducted

24


33/74

the study session. 5 None of these tests yielded significant differences, so the

data were combined and the variable distinguishing between experimenters was

not included in analyses.

Zero-order Correlations

Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between the two

subscales of the Academic Entitlement scale and all individual difference

measures collected prior to manipulation. Correlations were expected in the

same patterns as previously reported (Table 1), and are presented in Table 4.

Multiple Regression AnalysesThe main hypotheses were examined using a series of multiple regression

analyses predicting all dependent variables in the study. Each analysis began

with a saturated model that included all available predictor variables. This model

was then systematically reduced by eliminating the predictor with the largest

p -value for its beta weight until all beta weights were significant. Time-order was

used to determine the available predictor variables for each outcome variable.

Some of the outcome variables are continuous, such as affect and evaluation,

and linear regression was used. Logistic regression was used to examine the

binary variables of prioritizing evaluation and requesting additional information.

Affect. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) served as a

manipulation check; groups were expected to differ in their negative affect based

on the type of feedback (negative or no) the participants received. 6 Participants

5 The variable experimenter indicates which of several researchers and research assistantsconducted the experiment for each participant. 80% of the 185 participants were run by one of three main researchers (LS=35%, NN=24%, KB=21%). The remaining 20% of participants wererun by one of two additional researchers (AL=11%, MB=9%).6 Originally, three feedback groups were proposed. The positive feedback group washypothesized to have higher positive affect scores than the no feedback group. Since no positive

25


34/74

receiving negative feedback ( M = 1.57, SD = .58) reported significantly higher

negative affect than participants receiving no feedback ( M = 1.34, SD = .38),

t (162.2) = 3.22, p = .002. 7 Among all of the variables preceding the PANAS in

time, only condition ( = .222, t (176) = 3.07, p = .002) and semester ( = .165,

t (176) = 2.29, p = .023) emerged as significant predictors of negative affect in

multiple linear regression, R 2adj = .07, F (2, 177) = 7.67, p = .004. Thus,

participants receiving negative feedback and participants in the fall semester

were more likely to report negative affect than participants receiving no feedback

and participants in the spring semester.8

Evaluation. The main dependent variables in the study were participants

responses to the eight evaluation items. The four items in each set were

averaged to form scores for evaluation of the experiment (i.e. the task, M = 3.07,

SD = 1.38, = 0.92) and evaluation of the experimenter (i.e. the person,

M = 6.15, SD = 1.08, = 0.93). The regression analyses for both evaluation

variables included all individual difference measures, sex, experimenter,

feedback condition, score earned on the academic task, participants request to

receive further information, and affect scores. Based on theory, entitlement

feedback was given, no hypotheses remain concerning positive affect. Positive affect waspredicted by grandiosity (=.366, p < .001), personal self-efficacy (=.206, p = .025), and sex(=.191, p = .037).7 The variances between the two groups were significantly different, F = 9.27, p= .003, so theadjusted Aspen-Welch-Satterthwaite t was used, which reduces the degrees of freedom to

account for violation of equality of variances.8 Unfortunately, these variables interacted such that the effect for condition was present only inthe spring semester. Put another way, all participants in the negative condition reportedconsistent levels of negative affect ( M = 1.56, SD = 0.51 in the spring, M = 1.59, SD = 0.65 in thefall), but among participants receiving no feedback, spring participants ( M = 1.20, SD = 0.22)reported lower negative affect than fall participants ( M = 1.51, SD = 0.46), t (84) = 4.01, p < .001.It is possible that the timed academic task itself was a more negative experience for participantsin the early Fall condition, most of whom were in their first month of college (as opposed toparticipants in late Spring, most of whom were on the verge of completing their second semester of college).

26


35/74


36/74

nonsignificant. However, to ensure that condition did not play a role in

experimenter evaluation, additional analyses were performed.

First, condition was added to the reduced model described above. In a

model where only feedback condition and Responsibility were examined as

predictor variables of the criterion variable evaluation of the experimenter,

feedback condition was not significant ( = .012, t (114) = 0.14, p = .893), and

the inclusion of feedback condition did not reduce the effect of an entitled lack of

Responsibility ( = -.275, t (114) = 3.05, p = .003) on experimenter evaluation,

R 2

adj = .06, F (2, 114) = 4.66, p = .011.In order to examine potential interaction effects between feedback

condition and the Academic Entitlement subscale of Responsibility , the single

regression model predicting experimenter evaluation with an entitled lack of

Responsibility was analyzed separately for both feedback conditions. Among

participants receiving negative feedback on their academic task performance, AE

Responsibility predicted experimenter evaluation , = -.276, t (60) = 2.24,

p = .029; R 2adj = .06, F (1, 61) = 5.02, p = .029. Similarly, among participants

receiving no feedback on their academic task performance, AE Responsibility

predicted experimenter evaluation, = -.272, t (51) = 2.04; p = .047; R 2adj = .06, F

(1, 52) = 4.15, p = .047. No interactions were identified; Figure 1 displays the

mean evaluation scores for participants based on the feedback they received and

their level of Academic Entitlement Responsibility.

Request for information. Participants either requested to receive

information about the results of the study or not (0=No, 1=Yes). The regression

28


37/74

analyses for participants request to receive further information included all

individual difference measures, including sex and semester. The only predictors

expected to potentially be significant are need for cognition and academic

contingencies of self-worth, such that participants scoring high on these

measures may be more likely to desire further information about their

participation. Logistic regression analysis showed that a reduced model

containing feedback condition ( e = 0.32, Wald 2 = 6.17, p =.013) and the

Academic Entitlement subscale of Expectations (e = 1.62, Wald 2 = 4.39,

p =.036) predicted the likelihood of participants requesting additional information,R 2 = .08. Participants receiving negative feedback were less likely to request

further information than participants not receiving feedback, and participants with

entitled Expectations were more likely to request further information than

participants low in the Academic Entitlement subscale of Expectations. This

model correctly classified 70% of cases, a slight improvement on a model with no

predictors that correctly classified 68.2% of cases.

This analysis was confounded with experimenter, however, such that

participants requested additional information most often when one experimenter

in particular conducted the study ( n = 65). The pattern of results reported above

was strongest in the subset of participants whose data were collected by one of

the other experimenters ( n = 120); feedback condition ( e = 0.32, Wald 2 = 6.17,

p = .013) and the Academic Entitlement subscale of Expectations (e = 1.62,

Wald 2 = 4.39, p = .036) predicted the likelihood of participants requesting

additional information, R 2 = .19. However, in this model, 68.3% of cases were

29


38/74

classified correctly, no improvement on chance. This pattern of results did not

hold for participants ( n = 65) whose data were collected by one specific

experimenter; feedback condition ( e = 0.38, Wald 2 = 1.10, p =.295) and the

Academic Entitlement subscale of Expectations (e = 1.18, Wald 2 = 0.19,

p =.663) were not significant predictors of the likelihood of participants requesting

additional information, R 2 = .04, 83% correctly classified. Thus, the unexpected

relationship between feedback condition, AE Expectations , and participants

request for additional information about the results of the academic task is

inconclusive and will require future examination.Prioritizing evaluation. On the evaluation form with eight questions

evaluating both the experiment and the experimenter, there were also two check

boxes for each set of evaluations. Participants who checked these boxes did so

in order to prioritize their ratings in the report sent to the departmental chair about

the experiment (i.e., the task, n = 12, 6.5%) and the experimenter (i.e., the

person, n = 11, 6.0%). The regression analyses for participants request to

prioritize their evaluation included all individual difference measures, sex,

semester, feedback condition, participants request to receive further information,

affect scores, and evaluation of the experimenter or the experiment, respectively.

The largest predictors of participants requests to prioritize their evaluations were

expected to be their evaluations, such that participants who evaluate the

experiment and the experimenter negatively may be more likely to want to

expedite their evaluations.

30


39/74

However, the only significant predictors of prioritizing participants

evaluation of the experiment were academic contingencies of self-worth

(e = 5.30, Wald 2 = 6.34, p = .012), need for cognition ( e = 3.64,

Wald 2 = 5.07, p = .024), semester ( e = 0.11, Wald 2 = 6.00, p = .014), and

personal self-efficacy ( e = 0.10, Wald 2 = 6.60, p = .010). Following

hypothesized predictions for requesting additional information, participants were

most likely to choose to prioritize their evaluation of the academic task if they

possessed self-esteem contingent upon academic success, a high need for

cognition, an external locus of control, and participated during late Spring asopposed to early Fall ( R 2 = .38, 92.3% of cases correctly classified). No

variables emerged as significant predictors of prioritizing participants evaluation

of the experimenter.

Discussion

The individual difference of Academic Entitlement is defined as the

expectation of academic success without personal responsibility for achieving

that success. A fifteen-item self-report scale capturing two dimensions of

academic entitlement was developed and validated in the current research. The

newly developed Academic Entitlement scale possesses a reliable two-factor

structure, with subscales measuring students entitled lack of Responsibility for

their education and students entitled Expectations about professors and their

policies. The Academic Entitlement scale correlates in expected directions with

published measures, including Psychological Entitlement, Personal Self-Efficacy,

and Need for Cognition. Further, the Academic Entitlement scale predicts

31


40/74

students self-reported reactions to academic situations designated as

inappropriate and appropriate by instructors. Specifically, both Academic

Entitlement subscales predict students judgments of the appropriateness of

various inappropriate and appropriate student behaviors. The appropriateness

judgments then predict students ratings of the likelihood that they themselves

would engage in these inappropriate and appropriate behaviors. When

predicting the likelihood of engaging in inappropriate behaviors, AE Expectations

remains a significant predictor in addition to students ratings of the

appropriateness of inappropriate academic behaviors. The behavioral studyconducted in this paper provides further validation of the Academic Entitlement

scale.

After receiving negative academic feedback, participants had higher levels

of negative affect, and evaluated the academic task lower than participants who

did not receive any feedback. Participants with high scores on the Academic

Entitlement subscale representing an entitled lack of Responsibility for ones

education evaluated the experimenter (the person, as opposed to the task) lower

than participants with low, unentitled scores on Responsibility . Although a

myriad of potential covariates were considered, including other individual

differences (academic entitlement, psychological entitlement, grandiosity, need

for cognition, personal self-efficacy, contingencies of self-worth) and task

characteristics (feedback condition, experimenter, semester, affect, request for

information about the academic task), only the predicted main effects of feedback

32


41/74

condition and Academic Entitlement were found for the main outcome variables

of experiment and experimenter evaluation.

Ideally, this experiment would have identified differences in helping

behavior (defined as agreeing to stay about fifteen minutes or so to assist the

experimenter with data collection for a class project) among students based on

their levels of Academic Entitlement. Helping was so prevalent in this sample

(i.e. only 7.6% ( n = 12) participants refused the experimenters request for

assistance), however, that reliable analyses could not be performed. 1 Further

research is needed, using more sensitive behavioral measures, to examine theeffects of Academic Entitlement on interpersonal aggression, cooperation, and

altruism.

In the current study, Academic Entitlement was the only significant

predictor of participants ratings of the experimenter, a strong validation of the

Academic Entitlement scale. Although these ratings were obtained in a

controlled laboratory setting, the experimenters performed some duties

comparable to those of an instructor: proctoring and grading an academic task.

Therefore, participants ratings have parallels to end-of-course evaluations of

college instructors. To further elucidate the application of this study to the

college setting, effects of high levels of Academic Entitlement on students

expected exam grades and term evaluations of instructors and courses will be

examined in future research. The findings of this study suggest that students

evaluation of the course content will be best predicted by their performance and

33


42/74

course grades, but their evaluation of the instructor will be best predicted by their

level of Academic Entitlement.

Instructors course evaluations are important not only because they play a

role in hiring and promotion decisions, but due to their role as one of the only

evaluative measures of the students collegiate experience apart from course

grades. If these evaluations can be predicted well by individual differences in

students expectations of academic success and students lack of responsibility

for achieving academic success, then the validity of these measures can be

called into question. Research on the correlates of student evaluations of instruction may improve the validity of these evaluations by identifying related

and confounding measures. This research has the potential to raise instructors

awareness of entitled students propensity to use a course evaluation as a

method of interpersonal aggression. Entitled students aggressed against the

experimenter by evaluating her more negatively than nonentitled students

whether they received negative feedback or no feedback about their performance

on an academic task. Future research will also examine the behavior of entitled

students who receive positive feedback: does academic success (i.e., positive

feedback) suppress the influence of Academic Entitlement on

instructor/experimenter evaluation?

Beyond course evaluations, Academic Entitlement may have important

implications for student retention, success, and graduation. Students who

attribute their performance to their courses or instructors may fail to self-correct

or develop adaptive strategies in order to succeed in college. Thus, additional

34


43/74

research using the Academic Entitlement scale will examine cohort effects;

students who are on academic probation, for example, should have higher levels

of entitled attitudes than comparable students in large sections of sophomore-

level psychology courses. Students reporting high levels of Academic

Entitlement are using inappropriate academic strategies, do not adjust their

expectations about college-level work, and have an external locus of control

regarding their academic performance. These attributes are liable to lead to

negative outcomes such as a poor academic record or dissatisfaction with the

university. These results may lead to students not returning for a second year;Academic Entitlement may be able to explain some of the large drop in retention

after the first year of college.

Student incivility is a problem, especially in larger freshmen-level courses

such as Introductory Psychology. Elucidating sources of student incivility such

as individual differences in academic entitlement will aid in understanding that

may inform best practices in higher education.

35


44/74

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), 4 th ed. Washington, DC: American

Psychiatric Association.

Boice, R. (1996). First-order principles for college teachers: Ten basic ways to

improve the teaching process . Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Barron, G., & Yechiam, E. (2002). Private e-mail requests and the diffusion of

responsibility. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 507-520.

Beauregard, K. S., & Dunning, D. (1998). Turning up the contrast: Self-enhancement motives prompt egocentric contrast effects in social

judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 606-621.

Bogart, L. M., Benotsch, E. G., & Pavlovic, J. D. (2004). Feeling superior but

threatened: The relation of narcissism to social comparison. Basic and

Applied Social Psychology, 26, 35-44.

Brown , R. P. (2003). Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive:

Construct validity and links with depression. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 29, 759-771.

Brown, J. D., & Gallagher, F. M. (1992). Coming to terms with failure: Private

self-enhancement and public self-effacement. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 28, 3-22.

Budzek, K. J., & Campbell, N. J. (2007). Academic entitlement: Students

expectations of success without personal responsibility. Manuscript in

preparation.

36


45/74

Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism,

self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-

hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,

219-229.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of

need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.

Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J.(2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and

validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83,

29-45.

Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., Sedikides, C., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Narcissism

and comparative self-enhancement strategies. Journal of Research in

Personality, 34, 329-347.

Campbell, W. K., Rudich, E. A., & Sedikides, C. (2002). Narcissism, self-

esteem, and the positivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-love.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 358-368.

Cantwell, R. H., & Moore, P. J. (1996). The development of measures of

individual differences in self-regulatory control and their relationship to

academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 500-

517.

37


46/74

Carbone , E. (1998). Teaching Large Classes: Tools and Strategies. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Carbone, E. (1999). Students behaving badly in large classes. New Directions

for Teaching and Learning, 77, 35-43.

Carroll, L., Hoenigmann-Stovall, N., & Whitehead, G. I. (1996). The

interpersonal impact of narcissism: A comparative study of entitlement and

self-absorption factors. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 601-

613.

Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108, 593-623.

Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 11-17.

Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., Campbell, W. K., & Finkel, E. J.

(2004). Too proud to let go: Narcissistic entitlement as a barrier to

forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 894-912.

Farwell, L., & Wohlwend-Lloyd, R. (1998). Narcissistic processes: Optimistic

expectations, favorable self-evaluations, and self-enhancing attributions.

Journal of Personality, 66, 65-83.

Feather, N. T., & Simon, J. G. (1971). Causal attributions for success and

failure in relation to expectations of success based upon selective or

manipulative control. Journal of Personality, 39, 527-541.

38


47/74

Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance:

Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 73, 31-44.

Gump, S. E. (2006). Guess who's (not) coming to class: Student attitudes as

indicators of attendance. Educational Studies, 32, 39-46.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History,

measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102138). New

York: Guilford Press.Kernis, M. H., & Sun, C. (1994). Narcissism and reactions to interpersonal

feedback. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 4-13.

Kerr, S., Johnson, V. K., Gans, S. E., & Krumrine, J. (2004). Predicting

adjustment during the transition to college: Alexithymia, perceived stress,

and psychological symptoms. Journal of College Student Development, 45 ,

593-611.

Louie, T. A., & Tom, G. (2005). Timely completion of early class requirements:

Effects of student and faculty gender. Sex Roles, 52 , 245-250.

Meyers, S. A. (2003). Strategies to prevent and reduce conflict in college

classrooms. College Teaching, 51 , 94-98.

Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A

dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177-

196.

39


48/74

Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (1993). Narcissism and self-evaluation

maintenance: Explorations in object relations. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 19, 668-676.

Paulhus, D. L. (1983). Sphere-specific measures of perceived control. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1253-1265.

Pelham, B. W., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1989). From self-conceptions to self-worth:

The sources and structure of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 57, 672-680.

Raskin, R. & Hall, C. S. (1979). A Narcissistic Personality Inventory.Psychological Reports , 45 , 590.

Raskin, R. & Hall, C. S. (1981). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Alternate

form reliability and further evidence of construct validity. Journal of

Personality Assessment , 45 , 159-162.

Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image . Revised

edition. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Rosenthal, S. A. (2005). The fine line between confidence and arrogance:

Investigating the relationship of self-esteem to narcissism. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.

Santiago-Rivera, A. L., & Bernstein, B. L. (1996). Affiliation, achievement and

life events: contributors to stress appraisals in college men and women.

Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 411-419.

40


49/74

Smalley, R. L. & Stake, J. E. (1996). Evaluating sources of ego-threatening

feedback: Self-esteem and narcissism effects. Journal of Research in

Personality, 30 , 483-495.

South, S. C., Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2003). Personality and the

derogation of others: Descriptions based on self and peer report. Journal of

Research in Personality, 37 , 16-33.

Stucke, T. S., & Sporer, S. L. (2002). When a grandiose self-image is

threatened: Narcissism and self-concept clarity as predictors of negative

emotions and aggression following ego-threat. Journal of Personality, 70 ,509-532

Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (1989). Using Multivariate Statistics. Harper & Row:

New York.

Tiberius, R. G., & Flak, E. (1999). Incivility in dyadic teaching and learning.

New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 77, 3-12.

Tom, G. (1998). Faculty and student perceptions of classroom etiquette.

Journal of College Student Development , 39 , 515517.

Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2004). Ego threats elicits different social

comparison process among high and low self-esteem people: Implications

for interpersonal perceptions. Social Cognition, 22, 168-191.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). Manual for the Positive and Negative Affect

Schedule (Expanded Form) . University of Iowa.

Wilcox, R. R. (2003). Applying Contemporary Statistical Techniques. Academic

Press: New York.

41


50/74

Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 61, 590-594.

Wulff, D.H., Nyquist, J.D., & Abbott, R.D. (1987). Students' perceptions of large

classes. In M.G. Weimer (Ed.), Teaching Large Classes Well (pp. 17-30).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

42


51/74


52/74

Appendix B: Achievement Task

Reading 1

What is it about the stars that has intrigued humankind for thousands of years?

Most people who look up towards the sky in search of stars feel no particular compulsionto learn about stellar life cycles or a star's absolute magnitude or spectral class. Their

interest is not in the mathematical calculations and scientific data that fascinate

astronomers. They look skyward for the same reason that poets and songwriters have

done so for centuries -- to absorb the silent beauty of a starry night. Throughout history,

stargazing has been motivated by more than admiration for celestial objects, however.

As early as 3,000 B.C., the ancient Babylonians studied the night sky and identified

various constellations. Other early civilizations created star maps and tracked the

position of the stars for navigation and timekeeping purposes. Their efforts weresucceeded by advancements in science and technology that enabled modern society to

understand more fully those twinkling lights in the sky.

Although Galileo used a telescope in the early seventeenth century to make

important discoveries about our solar system, his instrument had limitations -- chiefly,

distortion of the image. The first practical reflecting telescope was invented by Isaac

Newton around 1670. By the close of the 1600s, there were a number of telescopic

observatories. During the next two centuries, hundreds of stars were observed and

catalogued. In 1838, Friedrich Bessel computed the distance of a star for the first time.Further studies and innovations helped astronomers to make detailed observations of

the spectra, or white light, of stars, which was key to determining a star's chemical

composition. In 1849, the first photos of stars were taken at an observatory in Boston.

In recent times, astronomers have learned a great deal about stars. From

observation of stars at different stages, astronomers have theorized that stars have

existed for hundreds of millions or billions of years. Stars are formed from dust and gas

in space. They are born in regions of space called nebulae, in which gravity prompts

interstellar matter to contract, generating heat. The result is the creation of a protostar. If

a protostar's temperature rises high enough, nuclear fusion reactions at its core will

transform it into a true star. During this stage, a star is classified as a main-sequence

star.

A main-sequence star is essentially a huge ball of glowing gas with a lifespan of

about 10 billion years. It is fueled by hydrogen, and when this starts to run out, further

44


53/74

gravitational contractions occur and the star collapses. It then undergoes elemental

changes that convert it into a red giant or a red supergiant if it has enough mass. After

around 100 million years, supergiants collapse due to gravitational forces. It is a

spectacular event. The collapse itself takes under a second and is followed by an

enormous explosion called a supernova -- so bright it can outshine the parent galaxy.The remnants, or debris, are flung throughout space, becoming a nebula in which new

stars will be born.

Everyone can readily identify the star that is indispensable to life on Earth -- the

Sun. Due to its proximity to Earth, it bathes our planet with sunlight -- the source of

almost all of the energy on Earth. It is its very closeness that makes the Sun look like a

giant yellow star. It is true that the Sun's diameter is about 100 times that of the Earth's.

Neve

Documents

Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale