-
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
3/74
Copyright by KAROLYN JERRY BUDZEK 2007All Rights Reserved.
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
7/74
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Feedback Condition, AE Responsibility predict Evaluation of
Experiment, Experimenter.
vii
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
35/74
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
51/74
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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
-
8/9/2019 Budzek Thesis for Committee 2007 Behavioral Validation of Academic Entitlement Scale
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