Patrick Estes - Capstone Research Project Proposal

8/13/2019 Patrick Estes - Capstone Research Project Proposal

1/32

Running head: EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET 1

Extending the Nomological Net of Academic Entitlement

Patrick L. Estes

Edgewood College

Madison, WI


2/32

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET 2

Extending the Nomological Net of Academic Entitlement

The purpose of this exploratory study is to investigate the possible relationship between a

newly proposed psychological construct, academic entitlement (AE), and two other theoretically

related variables; academic self-efficacy (ASE) and achievement goal orientation (AGO). More

specifically, one of the primary goals of this study is to further define the AE construct and provide further validation for a newly developed AE measure. Kopp, Zinn, Finney, & Jurich

(2011) have proposed a new AE measure ( Academic Entitlement Questionnaire ; AEQ), although

no other studies to date have provided further validation for this scale. AE has been defined as,

the tendency to possess an expectation of academic success without a sense of personal

responsibility for achieving that success (Chowning & Campbell, 2009, p. 982). ASE is a

context specific form of self-efficacy and refers to students confidence in their ability to carry

out academic tasks such as preparing for exams and writing term papers (Zajacova, Lynch, &

Espenshade, 2005). Lastly, AGO is defined as an individuals set of beliefs that reflect the

reasons why they approach and engage in academic tasks (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Linnenbrink

& Pintrich, 2002; Pintrich, 2000; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2002; Wentzel, 1999).

In recent years, a number of different sources have noted the apparent rise in college

students sense of psychological entitlement, which is often thought of as a component of

narcissism (citation of some of these sources?). Is the U.S. educational system failing when it

comes to preventing or curtailing these types of attitudes? Could the system actually be

reinforcing a sense of entitlement among college students? If this is the case, how will society

thrive with leaders who are primarily motivated out of self-interest, yet are supposedly

responsible and well educated? Are college students simply becoming more entitled or could

some of these manifestations of seemingly entitled attitudes be influenced by other underlying

David Gibson 1/14/14 6:32 AMDeleted: , including

David Gibson 1/14/14 6:35 AMComment [1]: I am not sure you can makethis jump. Self-interest has always been a partof the educated leaders of the western world.Milton Friedman even said something like,business only ethical responsibility is to profitback in the 60s. That means the leaders ofthose organizations are fairly self-interested.With that in mind, could you still be a very self-interested individual and not be academicentitled much less narcissistic?


3/32


factors? The research proposition in the proposed study is that this newly proposed AE construct

is not simply unidimensional, rather it is a multi-faceted construct. Understanding these entitled

student attitudes must be a priority among higher education professionals because of their likely

impact on the learning environment, student success, and long-term success beyond college. The

theoretical orientation guiding the researchers set of hypotheses is of a logical positivistorientation.

1. What role does AE play in successful college completion?

a. To what extent is AE related to ASE independent of demographic variables?

b. To what extent is AE related to AGO independent of demographic variables?

c. To what extent is AE related to demographic variables?

d. To what extent is ASE related to AGO independent of academic variables?

(secondary)

H1. AE will be significantly negatively correlated with ASE.

H2(a). Students higher in AE will be significantly more likely to be performance-oriented

than mastery-oriented (i.e., more extrinsically reward driven than intrinsically reward

driven).

H2(b). Students lower in AE will be significantly more likely to be mastery-oriented than

performance-oriented (i.e., more intrinsically reward driven than extrinsically reward

driven).

H3(a). AE will have no relationship with first-generational status, class standing, transfer

status, full/part-time status, residential status, employment status, and number of

advanced placement (AP credits) transferred.

Trevor Nagle 12/18/13 11:47 AMComment [2]: YES! !


4/32


5/32


Researchers have discussed a shift in attitudes among the current college student

population that resembles a sense of entitlement (e.g., Twenge, 2006), which has recently been

conceptualized as AE. Researchers have speculated about the wide variety of potential causes of

these entitled attitudes, which by itself suggests these attitudes develop from more than a single

source. For example, some have noted that college students, especially first-year students, maylack the knowledge necessary to succeed in college and that these academically entitled attitudes

may be a result of students failing to shift their expectations from high school to college

(Chowning & Campbell, 2009). As Chowning and Campbell (2009) noted, college freshmen

often have a difficult time adjusting academically and socially when transitioning from high

school. Chowning and Campbell also argued, from a social psychological perspective, that

feelings of anonymity in large lectures halls might lead to diffusion of responsibility, resulting in

entitled student attitudes. While this is clearly a complex issue that is rooted in various

disciplines, it seems necessary to further explore these entitled attitudes in students in order to

best help current and future generations of college students succeed.

This AE construct has been increasingly gaining attention among researchers from

various disciplines and has been described as a potentially serious threat to higher education

(Dubovsky, 1986; Twenge, 2009). There are several examples that demonstrate an increasing

prevalence of AE attitudes among students. To illustrate, college professors know all too well

how common disputes over grades are with students. As Baer (2011) highlighted, Faculties

across disciplines have noted an increasing number of students who are highly distressed over

grades, and this distress is accompanied by pervasive demands of professors (p. 565).

Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that suggests there is a widening gap between students

expectations of what is needed to succeed in college and how to apply these behaviors or

Trevor Nagle 12/18/13 11:51 AMComment [4]: Themselves suggest ! althougits not clear if itself is related to causes orattitudes ! .


6/32


strategies to succeeding academically (Keenberg & Drescher, 2012). This evidence does not

only exist anecdotally. For example, one study found that one-third of undergraduate students

expected at least a B for attendance (Twenge, 2006). Likewise, in an analysis of an incoming

freshman cohort, Shapiro (2012) found that a majority (57%) of students agreed that if they did

all the homework for a particular course that they should receive at least a B. In sum, thesefindings taken together might indicate the prevalence of AE.

Academic Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy has been defined as a self-evaluation of ones competence to successfully

execute a course of action necessary to reach desired outcomes (Bandura, 1977, 1982, 1986).

ASE is a context specific form of self-efficacy, which refers to students confidence in their

ability to carry out academic tasks, such as preparing for exams and writing term papers

(Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade, 2005). This construct is closely related to attributions.

Attributions are another form of cognitive appraisal that individuals make based on their self-

efficacy beliefs when evaluating environmental demands as threats or challenges.

According to self-efficacy theory, attributions are only one type of cue that students use to praise

their self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986). Additional attributions that may be used by an individual to

judge their self-efficacy include the amount of effort expended and perceived difficulty of task,

which both inevitably affect academic performance indirectly through self-efficacy.

Individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to perceive a situation as a challenge

rather than a threat (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001). When situations are seen as a challenge,

individuals tend to use more effective coping strategies and persist at the situation (Bandura,

1977). On the other hand, individuals with low self-efficacy tend to avoid challenging tasks,

while individuals with high self-efficacy tend to work harder and persist longer in the face of


7/32


8/32


& Jensen 2007; Robbins et al., 2004). Previous research suggests low ASE students are more

likely to change majors (Elias & Loomis, 2000) and have a lower sense of belonging (Freeman,

Anderman, & Jensen 2007). Moreover, Angell (2006) found that students with high ASE were

more intrinsically motivated to learn and learned for the sake of pleasure and satisfaction, which

was reinforced through feelings of intelligence. In a meta-analysis of psychosocial and studyskill factors, Robbins et al. (2004) found that academic goals, ASE, and academic-related skills

were the best predictors of retention. Specifically, Robbins et al. found ASE to be the best

overall predictor for both college outcomes measured (i.e., GPA and retention). Moreover,

Robbins and colleagues concluded that educational persistence models may underestimate the

importance of academic engagement, as evidenced by academic goals, academic-related skills,

and academic self-efficacy constructs, in college students retention behavior (p. 275). While

Robbins et al. indicated achievement goals were an important aspect of student success, they also

noted that there were not enough studies that included measures of mastery and performance

goal orientations to include in their meta-analysis.

Achievement Goal Orientation

Based on previous research demonstrating the importance of considering students goals

for learning (e.g., Ames, 1992; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996;

Linnenbrink, 2005; Robbins et al., 2004), AGO will be included as a primarily independent

variable in the present study. Learning goals affect students motivation to learn, specifically in

terms of their intrinsic motivation (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot, 1999). AGO is defined as an

individuals set of beliefs that reflect the reasons why they approach and engage in academic

tasks (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Pintrich, 2000; Skaalvik &

Skaalvik, 2002; Wentzel, 1999). Research has identified two primary academic goal

Trevor Nagle 12/18/13 11:55 AM

Deleted: E

Trevor Nagle 12/18/13 11:57 AMComment [5]: If you had said ! .Robbins andcolleagues concluded, Educationpersistence ! the capital E would have beencorrect. By adding in the that, you need asmall-letter e in this case.


9/32


orientations, including mastery and performance orientations (Ames & Archer, 1988). Mastery

orientation can be described as learning for the sake of learning and is thought to increase a

students intrinsic motivation. Conversely, performance orientation can be described as a

students focus on obtaining extrinsic rewards, such as grades. Students with a performance

orientation derive satisfaction in completing a task from extrinsic sources (e.g., grades). Masteryoriented students pursue challenging tasks and endure when faced with difficult situations

(Ames, 1992). On the other hand, performance oriented students tend to avoid challenges and

situations that would expose their incompetence, and prefer simple tasks where success is certain

(Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). When faced with challenges, performance oriented students also

exhibit withdrawal or avoidance behavior out of fear of failure (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996).

In general, mastery orientation is preferred over performance orientation. Empirical

research supports this claim, as performance orientation has been found to negatively correlate

with a number of positive psychological and academic variables (Linnenbrink, 2005), while

mastery orientation has been found to positively correlate with a number of positive

psychological and academic variables. For example, performance orientation has been

associated with higher anxiety, a greater likelihood to engage in academic dishonesty, and

surface level approaches to learning (Linnenbrink, 2005). Linnenbrink (2005, as cited in Sakiz,

2011) further elaborated on the negative consequences of performance orientations when she

asserted that performance approach goal orientations are detrimental for students academic

achievement, cause anxiety, and are not associated with motivational outcomes such as self-

regulation, interest, self-efficacy, and academic help-seeking (p. 776).

By contrast, mastery goal orientations have practically been found to positively correlate

with almost all motivational and academic achievement variables (Linnenbrink, 2005;


10/32


11/32


Kopp, Zinn, Finney, & Jurich, 2011). It is not surprising then that AE has been associated with

uncivil student behaviors (Chowning & Campbell, 2009) and other inappropriate student

behaviors, such as academic dishonesty (Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, & Farruggia, 2008).

A re-occurring theme among the handful of studies that have specifically investigated AE

have found only moderate overlap between narcissism, psychological entitlement, and AE. Inother words, AE appears to be a distinctly separate construct from narcissism and entitlement.

Furthermore, while entitlement has been thoroughly investigated among the literature, limited

studies have investigated the newly developed AE construct. In the following section, the

researcher will review the existing literature relevant to AE.

Study 1: Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, and Farruggia (2008).

In a two-part study of undergraduates, Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, and Farruggia (2008)

developed one of the several existing AE measures. In their study, Greenberger and colleagues

examined the relationship between AE and a number of other relevant variables and dispositional

personality characteristics, such as self-esteem, narcissism, and psychological entitlement. One

important finding from their study was that AE was found to only moderately overlap and have a

positive correlation with psychological entitlement and narcissism, as the authors hypothesized.

These results support the notion that AE is a similar, although distinctly different construct from

psychological entitlement and narcissism.

Furthermore, Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, and Farruggia (2008) found that AE was

negatively related to a number of other positive characteristics. For example, they found a

negative correlation between AE and self-esteem, work orientation, and social commitment. In

the second part of their study they examined the relationship between AE and parenting

practices, motivation, achievement anxiety, academic achievement, and academic dishonesty.


12/32


Additionally, AE was positively correlated with achievement anxiety, extrinsic motivation, and

academic dishonesty. It is interesting to note that although students higher in AE tended to cheat

and display more academically dishonest behaviors, it did not appear that these behaviors paid

off with higher grades, given the negative relationship between AE and academic achievement,

as measured by GPA. Lastly, AE was positively correlated with parental academic expectations,although Greenberger and colleagues concluded that the personality variables they investigated

explained considerably more of the variance in AE than the perceived parenting practices

measures. Furthermore, they were only able to account for 31% of the variance in AE using the

variables they included in their study using a regression analysis, which suggests there are still

important variables to consider as components of AE. One limitation of their study is that

intrinsic motivation was not measured, as only a measure of Extrinsic Academic Motivation

was included. The proposed study will provide a more comprehensive examination of the

relationship between AE and motivation, and attempt to capture a greater amount of variance

that predictive model of student success may account for by including measures of AE and other

theoretically important variables.

Study 2: Chowning and Campbell (2009).

Chowning and Campbell (2009) also made an attempt at developing an AE measure.

Their two-factor AE instrument includes measures of Externalized Responsibility for students

academic success and students self-serving Entitled Expectations regarding professors and

course policies. The focus of Chowning and Campbells study was slightly different than

Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, and Farruggias (2008) in that these researchers were interested in

investigating incivil student behavior and identifying a stable individual personality difference

(i.e., AE) that predicted inappropriate student behaviors. The working definition of AE that


13/32


Chowning and Campbell used was conceptually similar to Greenberger and colleagues, although

they did not explicitly mention demanding attitudes towards teachers. Chowning & Campbell

defined AE as, the tendency to possess an expectation of academic success without taking

personal responsibility for achieving that success (p. 982).

In their four-part study, Chowning and Campbell (2009) examined the relationship between the AE measure they developed and a number of different constructs, such as

narcissism, self-esteem, psychological entitlement, and general personality characteristics. Their

findings support those of Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, and Farruggia (2008) in that AE was only

moderately related to psychological entitlement and narcissism, suggesting its existence as an

independent construct. Furthermore, Chowning and Campbell found that freshmen that

externalized their responsibility in their academic pursuits often scored higher on AE. Likewise,

in a laboratory task, high AE students evaluated the experimenter more negatively than students

with lower AE scores. Here again, the entitled student is seen externalizing their responsibility

for their actions and displacing this on the experimenter.

Additionally, AE, specifically the Externalized Responsibility subscale of Chowning &

Campbells (2009) AE measure, was negatively correlated with need for cognition (i.e., extent to

which people engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities), personal control, which is

closely related to locus of control, and self-esteem, all of which are essential components for

academic success. The finding that AE and self-esteem are negatively correlated is consistent

with Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, and Farrugias (2008) findings. In terms of personality

correlates, AE was negatively related to agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion.

According to a recent meta-analysis of the Big 5 personality traits, (extraversion, agreeableness,

conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness) two out of three of these personality traits

Trevor Nagle 12/18/13 12:05 PMComment [6]: This is a bit confusing ! so is i

just the subscale which is negative correlatedwith a need for cognition? If so, its problematicto say that AE (as a whole) is negativecorrelated.


14/32


(agreeableness and conscientiousness) were identified as significant positive predictors of

academic performance, with the latter being the strongest predictor (Poropat, 2009). These

findings suggest the need to further investigate the AE construct among college students, as AE

appears to be related to a number of variables that are counterproductive to learning, student

engagement, and academic performance (Kopp, Zinn, Finney, & Jurich, 2011).Lastly, Chowning and Campbell (2009) examined the relationship between a number of

demographic variables and AE. Consistent with the findings from Greenberger, Lessard, Chen,

and Farruggia (2008) and other previous studies on entitlement (e.g., Ciani, Summers, & Easter,

2008; Hartman, 2012), men scored significantly higher than women on the Externalized

Responsibility subscale of the AE measure. Their findings didnt indicate any differences

between class level and AE, which is contrary to what one would expect. One may expect first-

year students to score higher on AE measures than upperclassmen, although results suggested

otherwise. This also supports the notion of academic entitlement as an individual difference not

necessarily diminishing as a student gains more experience in college.

One criticism of the AE measure developed by Chowning and Campbell (2009) was that

the authors did not describe how many factors their AE measure included, how the scale was

developed, or any other information regarding it that is critical for assessing the usefulness of the

instrument (see Kopp, Zinn, Finney, & Jurich, 2011 for a detailed psychometric critique of all

existing AE measures). Reinhardt (2012), the author of the next study the researcher has

reviewed, raised the question as to whether the researchers who have investigated AE are

measuring the same construct. Furthermore, Reinhardt (2012) emphasized the importance of

developing a valid instrument to measure AE and noted that, In order for research and

Trevor Nagle 12/18/13 12:05 PM

Deleted: their

Trevor Nagle 12/18/13 12:06 PMComment [7]: Write out fully ! .avoidcontractions, i.e., did not


15/32


discussion to occur, there needs to be a common understanding of what constitutes academic

entitlement (p. 4).

Study 3: Reinhardt (2012).

In a recent study, Reinhardt (2012) took the existing items from four separate AE

measures and attempted to extract an interpretable factor structure in order to create a conceptualframework. Reinhardt also examined the relationship between AE and various other related

constructs, including ones proposed in this study. His results suggest that AE is a

multidimensional construct with seven factors: narcissism, professors agency, arguing for

grades, expectations for grade increase, professors etiquette, reward for effort, and input on

classroom operations. Most importantly, and consistent with previous studies, Reinhardt found

that academic entitlement was related to, but distinctly different from, psychological entitlement.

The first variable of interest that Reinhardt (2012) examined as it relates to the present

study was academic goal orientation (AGO; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Finney, Pieper, & Barron,

2004; Bong, 2001). AGO is defined as the learning aims students have relating to their academic

work and was measured using the Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ), which includes four

subscales: Mastery-Approach Orientation , Mastery-Avoidance Orientation , Performance-

Approach Orientation , and Performance-Avoidance Orientation . Reinhardts results showed

that AE was positively related to performance-avoidance and mastery-avoidance orientations,

and to a lesser extent performance-approach. Furthermore, mastery-approach orientation was

negatively related to AE. Consistent with these findings, Reinhardt also found that students

higher in AE were less likely to be intrinsically and extrinsically motivated (identified regulation

specifically), thus not surprisingly these students were more likely to be amotivated. Reinhardt

concluded that it seems that students with a greater sense of entitlement may not be motivated


16/32


academically at all and raised an important question: Are these students expecting to coast

through their degrees by simply being present, while placing all the responsibility for their

education onto others, while also expecting to be rewarded when they are forced to exert effort

academically? I agree with Reinhardt up to a point, although I cannot accept his overall

indication that these academically entitled students are expecting to get through school withoutexerting any effort whatsoever. Is it possible that poor academic preparation and inaccurate

expectations for college that students bring from high school contribute to what has been

observed as entitled student behaviors? Could these issues simply be a symptom of a larger

issue, such as decreasing academic preparedness of incoming freshmen? One might hope this

would be the case because that would indicate that higher education institutions have more

control over shaping and re-calibrating these behaviors and expectations than they would

otherwise.

The second variable of interest as measured by Reinhardt (2012) was course self-

efficacy, as measured by theCollege Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (CASES; Owen & Froman,

1988). Although previous researchers (e.g., Achacoso, 2002) have called for a further

investigation of how other motivational variables such as persistence, self-efficacy beliefs, and

control of learning relate to AE, Reinhardt was the first to include both a measure of self-efficacy

and AE. His results showed a negative relationship between AE and ASE. Interestingly, ASE

was positively related to arguing for grades. These findings taken together suggest that

academically entitled students may be less confident in their academic endeavors, leading to

abandonment of personal responsibility, while still expecting to be rewarded for their effort.

Reinhardt concluded that this could create a cycle that reinforces this type of inappropriate

Trevor Nagle 12/18/13 12:09 PMComment [8]: Avoid first person ! .you canwrite this in third person and get the samethoughts across. Well know that it is youragreement/disagreement or your perspective,because youre the author.


17/32


student behavior. This finding is consistent with the concept of grade inflation and how some

authors have suggested grade inflation may contribute to the reinforcement of AE attitudes.

Methods

The purpose of this exploratory study is to investigate the possible relationship between anewly proposed psychological construct, AE, and two other theoretically related variables,

including ASE and AGO. More specifically, one of the primary goals of this study is to further

define the AE construct and provide further validation for a newly developed AE

measure. Kopp, Zinn, Finney, & Jurich (2011) have proposed a new AE measure, although no

other studies to date have provided further validation for this scale. The two primary

independent variables in this study are ASE and AGO, while the dependent variable is AE.

Data Collection Methods

The proposed quantitative exploratory study will employ a correlational, cross-sectional

research design. More specifically, an online survey instrument using Qualtrics Research Suite,

Version 37,892 (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) will be developed and will include three scales adopted

from previous studies to measure AE, ASE, and AGO. The researcher expects that the survey

will take approximately 15 minutes to complete.

Measurement

The four primary measures involved in the survey instrument for the current study

include the AEQ (Kopp, Zinn, Finney, & Jurich, 2011) to measure AE, the Academic Self-

Efficacy Scale (Leach, Queriolo, DeVoe, & Chemers, 2003) to measure ASE, and the Intrinsic

Goal Orientation (i.e., mastery goal orientation) and Extrinsic Goal Orientation (i.e.,

performance goal orientation) subscales of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

Trevor Nagle 12/18/13 12:19 PMComment [9]: Be explicit here with the lengthof the survey, i.e., number of items. Sinceyoure estimating 15 minutes for completion,how many items does this include? I know Icould go through the measurement section topiece that together, but as your reader, dontmake me work that hard. !


18/32


(MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991) to measure AGO, and a demographic

questionnaire.

Academic Entitlement. This construct is defined as the expectation that one should

receive certain positive academic outcomes (e.g., high grades) in academic settings, often

independent of performance (Kopp, Zinn, Finney, & Jurich, 2011, p. 106). The proposedsurvey instrument will include the AEQ (Kopp et al., 2011) to measure AE. The AEQ (a = .81 -

.84) consists of eight statements related to students expectations within the classroom and is

measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 =Strongly disagree and 7 =Strongly agree ). For the

purposes of the analysis, this scale will be treated as an interval level of measurement. An

example item includes If I don't do well on a test, the professor should make tests easier or

curve grades.

Academic Self-Efficacy. This construct is defined as individuals' convictions that they

can successfully perform given academic tasks at designated levels (Schunk, 1991).The

researcher will measure this construct using the ASES (Leach, Queriolo, DeVoe, & Chemers,

2003). The ASES consists of eight statements about participants confidence and perceived

ability or competence in accomplishing academic tasks and is measured on a 7-point Likert scale

(1 = Definitely NOT true of me and 7 = Definitely true of me ). For the purposes of the analysis,

this scale will be treated as an interval level of measurement. An example item includes I am

very capable of succeeding at the university.

Achievement Goal Orientation. This construct is defined as a persons set of beliefs that

reflect the reasons why they approach and engage in academic and learning tasks. Two

subscales from the MSLQ ( Intrinsic Goal Orientation [a = .74] and Extrinsic Goal Orientation [a

= .62]) are included in the survey instrument. The MSLQ (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, &


19/32


McKeachie, 1991) was designed to measure students' motivational orientations and their use of

different learning strategies, and is measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Definitely NOT true

of me and 7 = Definitely true of me ). For the purposes of the analysis, this scale will be treated as

an interval level of measurement. Example item from the Intrinsic Goal Orientation subscale

includes In a class like this, I prefer course material that really challenges me so I can learn newthings and an example item from the Extrinsic Goal Orientation subscale includes the most

important thing for me right now is improving my overall grade point average, so my main

concern in this class is getting a good grade.

Demographics. Based on the review of the literature, a number of standard demographic

questions commonly used in educational research have been selected for proposed survey

instrument. The following demographics will be collected from participants responses to

demographic questions on the proposed survey instrument: first-generational status (1 = first-

generation and 0 = not first-generation; nominal scale), sex (1 = male and 2 = female; nominal

scale), class standing (1 = freshman/first-year, 2 = sophomore, 3 = junior, 4 = senior, and 5 =

unclassified; ordinal scale), transfer status (1 = transferred to Edgewood College and 2 = began

at Edgewood College; nominal scale), full/part-time status (1 = full-time and 2 = part-time;

nominal scale), residential status (1 = lives on-campus and 2 = lives off-campus; nominal scale),

employment status (1 = working during school year and 2 = not working during school year;

nominal scale), and advanced placement (AP) credits (self-reported number of AP credits

transferred; ratio scale). The previously listed demographic variables are considered spurious

variables and will be controlled for as such.

Sampling


20/32


The theoretical population in the proposed study includes undergraduate students in the

U.S. Undergraduate students at the college where the proposed study will be conducted will

serve as the study population . Eligible participants for the proposed study will include

undergraduate students enrolled at a small liberal arts college in the Midwest during the spring

2014 semester. Participant demographics are expected to reflect those found at the college atwhich the study will be conducted (29.8% male and 70.2% female; 85.3% white and 14.7%

ALANA; Office of Institutional Assessment & Research, 2012). Additionally, the proportions of

faculty who are contacted to assist in the recruitment of participants, specifically in terms ofthe

school in which they teach, are expected to represent the overall college.

According to Leedy and Ormrod (2013), 20% of the population should be sampled if the

population is around 1,500. The sampling frame for the proposed study will be approximately

1,716 undergraduates; therefore, the optimistically expected sample size will be approximately

343 students, which is roughly 20% of the overall study population. A more conservative and

realistic estimate of the expected sample size is between 100 and 150 students. Ideally, a

probabilistic, stratified random sampling procedure would be utilized for the proposed study.

However, this option has been ruled out by the researcher because of time and resource

constraints. The next best sampling option that has been identified by the researcher for the

proposed study is a non-probability technique. More specifically,a purposive proportional quota

sampling technique will be employed to obtain as representative of a sample as possible.

Regardless, the researcher emphasizes the fact that any results from the proposed study must be

generalized with great caution.

The researcher will employ this sampling technique by first selecting classes that are held

during the time of the day in which most classes are held to maximize the sample size. The

Trevor Nagle 12/18/13 12:12 PMComment [10]: Based on our earlierconversation, this is hoped, but not expectedbased on how you plan to access this sample,right?

David Gibson 1/14/14 6:49 AMComment [11]: Trevors comment is accurate,but this will be a statement that is eliminatedonce the data are collected.

Trevor Nagle 12/18/13 12:12 PMDeleted: in

David Gibson 1/14/14 6:51 AMComment [12]: I will say ditto to Trevorsthought here, and this may very well becomepart of your manuscript. However, you maywrite it as, Purposive proportional quotasampling technique was employed with the goalof obtaining a representative sample. In thecase of this research, the sample (was or wasnot representative).

Trevor Nagle 12/18/13 12:13 PMComment [13]: This reinforces my commentabove ! you can hope to be representative, butyou shouldnt expect to be.


21/32


researcher has consulted with several experts to make this decision and has come to the

conclusion that between the timeframe of 10am and 12pm is most appropriate to select from

based on the number of courses in session. Another researcher at the same college the study will

be conducted at has used a similar sampling technique to garner a more than sufficient sample

size of over 400 respondents (D. Lambert, personal communication, November 30, 2013). Theresearcher will first identify courses with professors that he has worked with previously through

his employment at the College for the sake of convenience and their likelihood of agreeing to

participate. From there, classes will be randomly selected from all possible classes during the

10a to 12p timeframe using a random number generator in Microsoft Excel. The researcher prior

to the start of the spring 2014 semester will identify the classesto be included in the sample.

Professors teaching the selected courses will be contacted during the first week of the spring

2014 semester and data collection will occur between weeks four and six of that same semester.

Several options will be provided to professors to assist in the recruitment of student

participants. The first and preferred option will be to have the researcher take approximately 15

minutes at the beginning of one of their class periods to administer the survey to students. If that

is not possible, the second option will be to have the professor send out a recruitment email

including a brief description of the study, as well as the survey link to students enrolled in their

class. All professors will be asked to send out at least one reminder email including the survey

link to students enrolled in their course regardless of which initial recruitment option they select

from. Per the proposed proportional quota sampling technique chosen, survey responses will be

collected until approximately 102 male and 241 female responses have been obtained. The

sampling technique will only be used proportionally for gender, as it has been deemed

impractical by the researcher to include additional demographic variables in terms of obtaining

Trevor Nagle 12/18/13 12:15 PMComment [14]: Since youre doing apurposive, convenience sample, why not simplysend it to all possible classes to try andmaximize your ultimate sample size?

David Gibson 1/14/14 6:54 AMComment [15]: Ditto


22/32


equivalent proportions. One strength of the proposed sampling technique is that a higher

response rate will be more likely if time is given to the researcher to administer the survey

instrument during class time rather than sending out a mass email and hoping for responses. On

the other hand, this can be considered a limitation at the same time because the researchers

request to administer the survey during class time will make faculty members less likely to agreewith the first and preferred option for administering the survey. Moreover, one additional

limitation of the proposed sampling technique is that the extent to which the results can be

generalized will be quite variable and are directly dependent upon the demographics of

respondents.

Procedure.

Two weeks into the spring 2014, faculty teaching the selecting courses based on the

sampling method described previously will be contacted through email. This email will include

a brief explanation of the current study, as well an electronic document copy of the survey

instrument. The researcher will request faculty members assistance in sending the researchers

recruitment message with the survey link to students enrolled in their undergraduate courses four

weeks into the semester. The survey link will also be added to the Colleges Research

Participant Pool website for students to complete for course credit, if applicable. The survey will

remain open for two weeks after the initial launch.

The first page of the online survey will be an implied consent form, which will explain

the purpose of the study and the terms of participation. Students will be informed that their

participation is voluntary and that they may withdraw at any time. The participants will provide

informed consent by checking I agree at the bottom of the introductory page of the online

survey before they are allowed to proceed. Participants selecting I disagree will be sent to the

Trevor Nagle 12/18/13 12:17 PMComment [16]: Until you receive HPRB

approval (not sure if you have, as I havent seenthose emails), you should only state that Withintwo weeks of obtaining HPRB approval, ! ..

David Gibson 1/14/14 6:54 AMComment [17]: This will be determined later.Not a big deal.


23/32


end of the survey using Qualtrics skip logic feature. Participants will also be assured that their

responses will remain confidential and will only be used by the researcher for the purpose of this

study. All data collected will be stored in password-protected files and only anonymous,

aggregated results will be released and shared in any reports. At the end of the survey

participants will be asked to provide their student ID number, class they would like to apply thecourse credit to, and name of instructor if they are participating to earn course credit.

Data Analysis

Survey data will be exported from Qualtrics as a .SPSS file. All analyses will be

conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics, release version 19.0.0.1. Initial analysis will include

descriptive statistics to determine the representativeness of the sample in relation to the overall

student population. Significance testing (e.g., t-tests and chi-squared tests) will be used to

determine what demographic variables may be related to independent variables.

Discussion

Strengths of the Proposed Research Design

Efficient collection of large amounts of data. The researcher will utilize a web-based

survey for data collection, which will allow him to quickly gain a great deal of information from

student participants in a non-threatening, and time- and cost-efficient manner. Considering that

the proposed study is exploratory in nature, a survey instrument is the most logical choice for

collecting the relatively large amounts of data that will be needed to explore the relationships

between the variables of interest. Additionally, the researcher has easy and cost-free access to

the two main technologies/software packages that will be used to collect and analyze data (i.e.,

SPSS and Qualtrics).


24/32


Broad collection of input from diverse group of students. A proportional quota

sampling technique (non-probabilistic) will be employed to obtain as representative of a sample

as possible for the proposed study. This sampling approach is the next best option for obtaining

a sufficient sample size that is fairly representative of the larger student body at the College

without employing a probability sampling approach, which has been determined unrealisticunder the given circumstances and constraints. The goal in using this approach is to obtain a

fairly representative sample of students in terms of undergraduate academic division

representation among the four primary and largest schools (i.e., Arts & Sciences, Business,

Education, and Nursing). This type of representation will allow for greater likelihood of

generalizing the results beyond the College at which the proposed study will be conducted (e.g.,

to similar academic departments at other institutions), assuming a sufficient sample size is

obtained.

Limitations of the Proposed Research Design

Inability to make causal inferences. The nature and design of the proposed

correlational study does not allow the researcher to make causal inferences. The researcher

acknowledges that this is a common limitation shared by many educational psychology research

studies and that correlation doesn't imply causation. This holds true even if the researcher

decided to utilize more advanced statistical modeling techniques, such as structural equation

modeling (SEM). For example, latent variable modeling is frequently used in the field of

educational psychology research to explain the directional relationship between a number of

variables. In this scenario, the researcher must still approach making any type of causal

inferences between variables with caution (T. Nagle, personal communication, October 31st,

2013).

David Gibson 1/14/14 6:55 AMComment [18]: Regression is a predictiveform statistical analysis, because will beindicating that AE explains some percentage ofthe variance in each of the dependent variables.

At least I think that is the thinking.

David Gibson 1/14/14 6:58 AMComment [19]: I would just eliminate thisparagraph. Why make any claim about causalinference? It is generally implicit in socialscience research. How you term your findingswill be most important. For example you mightindicate, High levels of AE resulted in asignificant negative effect on AGO independentof ASE as well as all demographic variablesexplaining 36% of the variance in the AGO.


25/32


Use of self-report data. Survey instruments rely on self-reported data. Both the

independent and dependent variables measured by survey instrument rely on self-reported

items. Individuals are not always the best judge of their own attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and past

behaviors, or may respond in socially desirable ways, and the researcher acknowledges the

accuracy of these measures may questioned. Ideally, a researcher would utilize behavioralmeasures that can be objectively measured in a study of this nature, but under the researchers

current constraints they have decided that a survey approach is most feasible despite the use of

self-reported measures.

Conclusion

A potential flaw in research design of the proposed study could be the sampling approach

and method the researcher has proposed. The researcher would benefit from spending more time

and effort considering their sampling procedure and approach in designing a more effective

research project in the future. More specifically, and under more ideal conditions, the researcher

may consider looking into probability sampling methods that could be used to help obtain as

representative sample as possible and maximize the generalizability of their findings.

Considering that academic entitlement has only been formally acknowledged in the literature

within the last five years or so, a wealth of potential research projects exist for exploring this

construct and related topics. A limited number of studies have investigated AE so the door is

virtually wide-open for exploration. The study population in the proposed study is primarily

Caucasian. Future research would benefit from examining academic entitlement and the other

variables included in the proposed study using a more demographically diverse sample of college

students. Furthermore, the type of institution and location (small, private 4-year institution in the

Midwest) at which this study will be conducted, may be considered as both a limitation and


26/32


strength, primarily the latter. For example, it may be a limitation in that the results must be

generalized with caution to other types of institutions and those in different locations. On the

other hand, AE has not been investigated within this particular institutional setting previously,

which adds to the existing literature on the construct.

Researchers have only touched the tip of the iceberg in terms of investigated this topic.Many additional unanswered questions exist, including: How does AE develop? What can

institutions do to help minimize these entitled student behaviors? Does a measure of AE provide

any utility for assessing the effectiveness of academic programs, early student interventions, or

other retention related initiatives? How do AE attitudes hold longitudinally? Do students

become less academically entitled as they gain more education? Is AE seen in non-traditional

students and/or online students, or is it mutually exclusive to the most current generations? It

would be beneficial in general to investigate AE in additional student demographics and

populations. This last question posed by the researcher is one in which the researcher hopes to

capitalize on considering that both these student populations (non-traditional and online) exist at

the institution at which the current study will be conducted.

The study is intended to help clarify the nomological network of AE by investigating

theoretically related variables, such as ASE and AGO, which have not been included as measures

within a single study of AE to the researchers knowledge. Moreover, the proposed study

intends to help clarify the relationship between AE and academic achievement. Kopp, Zinn,

Finney, and Jurich (2011) noted that the sample used in their study in which they developed their

AE measure only included freshman and was primarily female. The proposed study also adds to

the existing literature by examining AE in particular student demographics (e.g., upper classmen)

that have not been included in previous studies, have only been investigated within a single


27/32


study, or have been underrepresented in samples from other studies. Lastly, the proposed study

will be the first study to replicate and test the validity of the newly devised AEQ (Kopp et al.,

2011), which will allow for greater utility of this measurement instrument.

ReferencesAchacoso, M. V. (2002). What do you mean my grade is not an A? An investigation of academic

entitlement, causal attributions, and self-regulation in college students (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas, Austin. Retrieved from

http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/2486

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 84 (3), 261.

Ames, C. & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies

and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (3), 260.

Angell, L. R. (2006). The relationship of impulsiveness, personal efficacy, and academic

motivation to college cheating.College Student Journal, 40, 118131.

Baer, J. C. (2011). Students' distress over grades: Entitlement or a coping response? Journal of

Social Work Education , 47 (3), 565-577.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1982). The assessment and predictive generality of self-percepts of efficacy.

Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry , 13, 195-199.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Trevor Nagle 12/18/13 12:20 PMComment [20]: Start this on a new pagealways..Just an FYI


28/32


Bong, M. (2001). Role of self-efficacy and task-value in predicting college students' course

performance and future enrollment intentions. Contemporary Educational Psychology ,

26 (4), 553-570.

Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004).

Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-reportmeasure. Journal of Personality Assessment , 83(1), 2945.

Ciani, K., Summers, J., & Easter, M (2008). Gender differences in academic entitlement among

college students.The Journal of Genetics , 169 (4), 332-344.

Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college

student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (1), 55.

Chowning, K., & Campbell, N. J. (2009). Development and validation of a measure of academic

entitlement: Individual differences in students externalized responsibility and entitled

expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology , 101 (4), 982997.

doi:10.1037/a0016351

Diseth, ., Pallesen, S., Brunborg, G., & Larsen, S. (2010). Academic achievement among first

semester undergraduate psychology students: the role of course experience, effort,

motives and learning strategies. Higher Education , 59(3), 335-352. doi:10.1007/s10734-

009-9251-8

Dubovsky, S. L. (1986). Coping with entitlement in medical education.The New England

Journal of Medicine , 1672-1674.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist , 41,

1040-1048.


29/32


Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of

Psychology , 53 , 109-132.

Elias, S. M., & Loomis, R. J. (2000). Using an academic self-efficacy scale to address university

major persistence. Journal of College Student Development, 41 (4), 450-454.

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational

psychologist , 34(3), 169-189.

Elliot, A. J., & Church , M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance

achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 , 218-232.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and

intrinsic motivation: A meditational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 70 , 461-475.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2! 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (3), 501.

Finney, S. J., Pieper, S. L., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Examining the psychometric properties of

the Achievement Goal Questionnaire in a general academic context. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 64(2), 365-382.

Freeman, T. M., Anderman, L. H., & Jensen, J. M. (2007). Sense of belonging in college

freshmen at the classroom and campus levels. The Journal of Experimental Education,

75(3), 203-220.

Greenberger, E., Lessard, J., Chen, C., & Farruggia, S. P. (2008). Self-entitled college students:

Contributions of personality, parenting, and motivational factors. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence , 37 (10), 11931204. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9284-9

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., & Lehto, A. T. (1997). Predictors and


30/32


consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and

making the grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (6), 1284-1295.

Hartman, T. B. (2012). An analysis of university student academic self-entitlement: Levels of

entitlement, academic year, and gender. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Eastern

Michigan University. Retrieved fromhttp://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1758&context=theses

Keenberg, D. A., & Drescher, B. A. (2012, April). Academic entitlement plus teaching to the

test: Recipe for ignorance . Poster session presented at the 2012 Annual Convention of the

Western Psychological Association (WPA), San Francisco, CA.

Kopp, J. P., Zinn, T. E., Finney, S. J., & Jurich, D. P. (2011). I cant believe she gave me a C!:

Measuring entitlement in higher education. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling

and Development , 44(2), 105-129.

Leach, C. W., Queirolo, S. S., DeVoe, S., & Chembers, M. (2003). Choosing letter grade

evaluations: The interaction of students achievement goals and self-efficacy.

Contemporary Educational Psychology , 28, 495-509.

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013), Practical research: Planning and design (10th ed.), Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). The dilemma of performance-approach goals: The use of multiple

goal contexts to promote students motivation and learning. Journal of Educational

Psychology , 97 (2), 197-213.

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Achievement goal theory and affect: An

asymmetrical bidirectional model. Educational Psychologist, 37 (2), 69-78.

Office of Institutional Assessment & Research. (2012). Edgewood College quick facts 2012-


31/32


2013, Madison, WI: Edgewood College. Retrieved from the Edgewood College Office of

Institutional Assessment & Research website at

http://my.edgewood.edu/sites/services/iro/Data/Institutional%20Research/Quick%20Fact

s/Quick%20Facts%202012-2013.pdf

Owen, S. V., & Froman, R. D. (1988). Development of a College Academic Self-Ef " cacy Scale.(Report No. TM 012 263). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher

Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED298158).

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components

of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 33-40.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J (1991). A manual for the use of the

motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, Michigan: The

University of Michigan.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning

and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology , 92(3), 544-555.

Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic

performance. Psychological Bulletin , 135 , 322-338.

Qualtrics. (2013). Qualtrics Research Suite (Version 37,892). Provo, UT: Qualtrics.

Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-component analysis of the narcissistic personality

inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology , 54 , 5.

Reinhardt, J. (2012). Conceptualizing academic entitlement: What are we measuring?

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Windsor. Retrieved from

http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=etd


32/32


Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do

psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin , 130 (2), 261288. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261

Sakiz, G. (2011). Mastery and performance approach goal orientations in relation to academic

self-efficacy beliefs and academic help seeking behaviors of college students in Turkey. Educational Research , 2(1), 771-778.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist , 26,

207231.

Shapiro, P. D. (2012). Entitled to cheat: An examination of incoming freshmen at a small

regional university. The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology, 4 (1), 2.

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2002). Internal and external frames of reference for academic

self-concept. Educational Psychologist, 37 (4), 233-244.

Twenge, J. M. (2006).Generation me: why today's young Americans are more confident,

assertive, entitled--and more miserable than ever before . New York: Free Press.

Twenge, J. M. (2009). Generational changes and their impact in the classroom: Teaching

Generation Me. Medical Education , 43, 398-405.

Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships:

Implications for understanding motivation in school. Journal of Educational Psychology ,

91, 7697.

Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., & Espenshade, T. J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic

success in college. Research in Higher Education , 46 (6), 677-706. doi:10.1007/s11162-

004-4139-z

Documents

Patrick Estes - Capstone Research Project Proposal