1

I Need Food and I Deserve a Raise: People Feel More Entitled When Hungry

Emily M. Zitek, Cornell University

Alexander H. Jordan, Dartmouth College

Abstract

Entitlement, or the feeling that one is more deserving of positive outcomes than other people are, has negative consequences in the workplace and in interpersonal relationships. It is therefore important to understand the sources of entitlement. We test the hypothesis that hunger, a self-focused state, leads people to feel more entitled. In Study 1, participants who had not yet eaten lunch reported greater entitlement and were more likely to refuse to help the researcher than participants who had eaten lunch. In Study 2, participants who were made to feel hungry by smelling a desirable food reported greater entitlement than did participants who did not smell the desirable food. Implications of these results are discussed.*This paper will be presented at the 2014 Academy of Management Annual Meeting in Philadelphia.I NEED FOOD AND I DESERVE A RAISE: PEOPLE FEEL MORE ENTITLED WHEN HUNGRYIt is becoming increasingly common for a poorly performing employee to demand a raise or for a slacking student to demand an A on a paper. Entitlement is on the rise (Twenge, 2006), and to understand where a sense of entitlement comes from, what its consequences are, and how to deal with entitled individuals, researchers have begun studying entitlement in various groups such as students (Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, & Farruggia, 2008; Kopp, Zinn, Finney, & Jurich, 2011), consumers (Butori, 2010; Fisk & Neville, 2011), and employees (Fisk, 2010; Harvey & Martinko, 2009). In this paper, we add to the entitlement literature by demonstrating for the first time that a physiological state, hunger, can be a source of entitlement. Entitlement: Definition, Consequences, and SourcesPsychological entitlement is the feeling that one is more deserving of positive outcomes than other people are (Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004). Entitled individuals believe that they are owed valuable resources (e.g., a higher salary, more power, a better grade) regardless of their effort or performance relative to others (Twenge & Campbell, 2009). Entitlement is a type of self-focus (OBrien, Anastasio, & Bushman, 2011) in that entitled individuals pay attention to themselves and the special treatment that they should receive over other things. Individuals show some stable differences in their levels of entitlement across time, and entitlement also varies within a person according to situational influences. Therefore, entitlement can be considered as both a personality trait and a dynamic psychological state (Tomlinson, 2013). Entitlement carries a host of social consequences, mostly negative. Entitled individuals behave selfishly; they think about their own needs before the needs of others. For example, entitled individuals are less likely to help other people (Zitek, Jordan, Monin, & Leach, 2010), and they are less empathic and worse at perspective-taking (Campbell et al., 2004). In one study, entitled individuals claimed more of a common resource, even though sharing it would be better for everyone (Campbell et al., 2004), and in another study, entitled parents were more likely to drop out of a parenting class, even though continued enrollment could benefit their children (Snow, Kern, & Curlette, 2001). Furthermore, entitled individuals are more likely to behave dishonestly (Greenberger et al., 2008), make unethical decisions (Tamborski, Brown, & Chowning, 2012), and break rules (Burt, Donnellan, & Tackett, 2012). Additionally, entitled individuals have interpersonal problems. They are more likely to treat their romantic partners in a selfish manner (Campbell et al., 2004), have self-image goals in relationships (Crocker & Canevello, 2008), refuse to apologize for their mistakes (Howell, Dopko, Turowski, Buro, 2011), act aggressively when criticized (Campbell et al., 2004), and have hostility and conflict in their relationships (Moeller, Crocker, & Bushman, 2010). Research demonstrates that entitlement has specific negative consequences in the workplace. Entitled individuals are more likely to blame external factors for problems at work (Harvey & Martinko, 2009) and perceive that they are being treated poorly by their supervisors (Harvey, Harris, Gillis, & Martinko, in press). Entitlement is also associated with reduced job satisfaction and increased turnover intent (Harvey & Martinko, 2009). Additionally, people who have to interact with entitled individuals in the workplace may experience decreases in their physical and psychological well-being (Fisk & Neville, 2011). Given that entitlement has so many negative consequences in the workplace and in life in general, it is important to understand what causes entitlement. Some scholars have discussed how messages in the media (Twenge, 2006) or an organizations culture or reward system (Tomlinson, 2013) can contribute to entitlement. Furthermore, research has shown that peoples entitlement increases after they recall an unfair event (Zitek et al., 2010), during a negotiation after investing in costly outside options (Malhotra & Gino, 2011), and after they are exposed to entitlement-related words (OBrien et al., 2011). Moving beyond these social and cognitive causes of increased entitlement, we propose that entitlement may also be driven by amplified levels of a basic physiological drivehungerwhich may cause people to turn their focus inward and place their needs above those of others. If our hypothesis is supported, this would point to a source of entitlement that is both widely variable and readily modifiable in the workplace and elsewhere.Hunger and Self-FocusHunger is thought to be a lower-order need that has to be satisfied before people can worry about higher-order needs, such as being social (Kenrick, Griskevicius, Neuberg, & Schaller, 2010; Maslow, 1943). Hunger can be considered a motivationally-intense negative affect, and motivationally-intense affects narrow attention (Gable & Harmon-Jones, 2010). Thus, when people are hungry and paying close attention to themselves and their desire for food, they may have trouble focusing on anything else, especially the needs of others, giving rise to psychological entitlement.

Although most past research on hunger has examined attention, memory, and preference for food-related cues (e.g., Green, Elliman, & Rogers, 1996; Mogg, Bradley, Hyare, & Lee, 1998; Morris & Dolan, 2001; Read & van Leeuwen, 1998), some studies have examined how hunger can affect social judgments (e.g., Nelson & Morrison, 2005; Pettijohn, Sacco, & Yerkes, 2009; Swami & Tovee, 2006). For example, one study showed that people who had not yet eaten dinner were less interested in social activities than people who had just eaten dinner (Pettijohn, Ahmed, & Pettijohn, 2012). The results of this study are consistent with our idea that hungry people are focused on themselves and their needs instead of other people, although the authors did not look specifically at whether hunger increases entitlement.Current Research

In this paper, we explore the relationship between hunger and entitlement. First, in a reanalysis of an existing data set, we examine the correlation between hunger and entitlement. Then, in Study 1, we survey participants before or after they eat lunch to examine whether hungry participants (i.e., those who have not yet eaten lunch) report greater entitlement and act more entitled than do participants who are not hungry. In Study 2, we manipulate hunger with food smells and examine whether hungry participants (i.e., those who smell delicious food) report greater entitlement than do participants who are not hungry. These studies test the hypothesis that when people are hungry, they feel entitled. REANALYSIS OF AN EXISTING DATA SETAs an initial test of our hypothesis, we examined the correlation between hunger and entitlement in an existing data set collected for a separate purpose. In the study, participants were told that they would be tasting and rating various foods. Participants first reported how hungry they were on a scale from 1 (not at all hungry) to 7 (very hungry). (This item was originally a filler item.) They then tasted and rated the foods. Afterward, participants filled out the Psychological Entitlement Scale (PES; Campbell et al., 2004) in which they rated their level of agreement (1 = strong disagreement, 7 = strong agreement) with items such as I honestly feel Im just more deserving than others and People like me deserve an extra break now and then. Participants were asked to report how they felt at the present moment so that a measure of state entitlement was collected ( = .90).

Results from 146 participants showed a significant correlation between hunger and entitlement, r = .20, p = .02. As predicted, participants who were hungrier felt more entitled. Although this correlation is consistent with our hypothesis, the reason for this correlation is unclear. It is possible that hunger leads to greater entitlement, as we are predicting, or that entitled people exaggerate their hunger or other needs. Study 1 seeks to address this issue by surveying people who are classified as hungry or not hungry by an objective standard. STUDY 1The goal of this study was to determine whether feeling hungry leads people to be more entitled. Following a common method used in other research on hunger and social preferences (e.g., Pettijohn, Ahmed, & Pettijohn, 2012.), participants were surveyed as they entered or exited a dining hall at lunchtime, and we compared the self-reported entitlement of participants who had not eaten lunch yet with that of those who had eaten lunch. Given that entitled people are less likely to help others (Zitek et al., 2010), to measure an entitled behavior, we also asked participants if they would help the researcher by filling out an additional survey. Method

Participants. One hundred and three undergraduates (56 women, 47 men, Mage = 19.0) completed the survey on the way into or out of a dining hall. They received a pen for participating.

Survey. Participants began by indicating whether they had eaten lunch or not and how hungry they were at that moment on a 7-point scale from 1 (not at all hungry) to 7 (very hungry). Next, participants filled out the PES (Campbell et al., 2004) as a measure of their entitlement ( = .90). Then after reporting their basic demographics, participants read:

Thank you for completing the survey. There is an additional, optional survey on the back. You do not have to complete it, but it would help us if you filled it out. If you are willing to complete the second survey, please flip this paper over to the back. If participants chose to continue to the back of the survey, they then completed an unrelated survey asking about male and female sports coaches. ResultsManipulation check. Of the participants surveyed, 50 had eaten lunch, and 53 had not yet eaten lunch. Participants who had not eaten lunch were much hungrier (M = 5.08, SD = 1.04) than were participants who had eaten lunch (M = 1.92, SD = 0.94), t(101) = 16.14, p < .001. Therefore, surveying people before and after lunch was a good way of comparing hungry and non-hungry people. Entitlement. As predicted, participants who had not eaten lunch reported a significantly greater sense of entitlement on the PES (M = 3.48, SD = 1.12) than did participants who had eaten lunch (M = 2.89, SD = 1.02), t(101) = 2.78, p = .01. Furthermore, participants who had not eaten lunch were less likely to fill out the extra survey (60% helped) than were participants who had eaten lunch (78% helped), 2(1, N = 103) = 3.73, p = .05. Thus, participants who were hungry not only said that they felt more deserving, but they acted entitled by refusing to help the researcher. Discussion

This study provides support for our hypothesis that hungry people feel more entitled. Participants who had not eaten lunch said they felt more deserving than others and were more likely to refuse to help the researcher. Although it is possible that participants who had not eaten lunch refused to fill out the extra survey because they were in a rush to get into the dining hall, this does not explain the significant difference on the PES given that it takes the same amount of time and effort to endorse more or less entitled responses on this scale.

Also, note that in this study, the relationship between hunger and entitlement cannot be explained by an increased likelihood of complaining about hunger on the part of the entitled individuals. People were surveyed either on their way into or out of the dining hall, and whether they had or had not eaten lunch would not be affected by their entitlement levels.

STUDY 2The goal of this study was to manipulate hunger using food smells. The presentation of food-related stimuli has been shown to be an effective hunger induction in other research (e.g., Piech, Hampshire, Owen, & Parkinson, 2009). We made the lab room either smell normal or smell like pizza, and we examined whether participants in the pizza-smelling room reported greater entitlement.Method

Participants. Two hundred and thirteen undergraduates (137 women, 75 men, 1 unreported, Mage = 19.8) completed this experiment in exchange for $5.

Manipulation and procedure. Participants took the study in a lab room that either smelled like pizza or did not smell like pizza. In the pizza smell condition, participants sat in a lab room in which a frozen pizza was being cooked in a toaster oven. Partway through the experiment, someone entered the lab room and said that she was grabbing her lunch. She then took the pizza out of the toaster oven and left. She closed the door on her way out to keep the pizza smell trapped in the room. In the no smell condition, participants sat in the same lab room but without a pizza smell and without a visible toaster oven. Partway through the experiment, someone entered the lab room and said that she was grabbing some pencils. She also closed the door on her way out.Participants in both conditions first played two word games (they listed cities that started with C and completed a word search), and they answered filler questions about the tasks. Then participants filled out a personality test in which they reported whether they agreed with various statements about themselves at the present moment (1 = strong disagreement, 7 = strong agreement). The personality test included the items from the PES (Campbell et al., 2004), which were used as our measure of entitlement, ( = .86), as well as some filler items used in other research (Zitek et al., 2010, Experiment 3). Next, participants responded to some filler questions such as the short form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Mackinnon, Jorm, Christensen, Korten, Jacomb, & Rodgers 1999) and demographics questions. At the end of the study, participants reported how hungry they were on a scale from 1 (not at all hungry) to 7 (very hungry). They also reported whether they could smell pizza in the lab room (as a manipulation check) and how much they like pizza on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). The questions about hunger and pizza were placed at the end to help disguise the purpose of the study. Results

We excluded the data from 12 participants who got the manipulation check question incorrect (i.e., said that there was no pizza in the room when there was or vice versa). And because smelling pizza should only make people hungry if they like pizza, we excluded the data from 36 additional participants who said that they did not like pizza (i.e., responded less than 4 on the 7-point scale). This left 166 participants in our analyses. Manipulation check. Participants who smelled the pizza reported marginally higher hunger levels (M = 3.81, SD = 2.02) than did participants who did not smell the pizza (M = 3.31, SD = 1.78), t(163) = 1.68, p = .09. It is possible that the effect size on the hunger manipulation check question was small because this item appeared toward the end of the study when participants had adjusted to the pizza smell. We also asked participants in the pizza smell condition whether the smell made them hungry, and the majority said that it did, so this provides some additional evidence that the manipulation was effective.Entitlement. As predicted, participants who smelled the pizza reported a significantly greater sense of entitlement on the PES (M = 3.57, SD = 1.00) than did participants who did not smell pizza during the study (M = 3.26, SD = 0.91), t(164) = 2.08, p = .04. Thus, participants who got hungry from the pizza smell felt more entitled.

Discussion

The results of this study replicate those of Study 1. Again, hunger led to increased entitlement. Of the participants who liked pizza, they reported greater entitlement when the room smelled like pizza as compared to when the room did not smell like pizza. Thus, it seems that hunger was induced in people who liked pizza, and that made those people feel deserving of good things. GENERAL DISCUSSIONIn this paper, we provided evidence for our hypothesis that hunger leads people to feel more entitled. In our reanalysis of existing data from a study involving the rating of foods, we found that self-reports of hunger and entitlement were positively correlated. In Study 1, participants who had not yet eaten lunch reported greater entitlement and were more likely to refuse to help the researcher than participants who had eaten lunch. In Study 2, participants who were made to feel hungry by smelling a desirable food reported greater entitlement than did participants who did not smell the desirable food. Thus, it seems that the self-focus involved in feeling hungry extends beyond food acquisition. Hungry people think about themselves instead of others and focus on their own needs, which leads them to feel and act entitled.Dealing with entitled individuals is not easy and can even lead to reductions in our well-being (Fisk & Neville, 2011), so it is important to understand where entitlement comes from and how we can reduce it. Hunger levels fluctuate throughout the day, and peoples sense of entitlement seems to fluctuate along with their hunger. Compared to other sources of increased entitlement such as being treated unfairly (Zitek et al., 2010) or hearing entitled messages in the media (Twenge, 2006), entitlement brought on by hunger should be much more modifiable. People might not be able to forget the unfair event or the message from the media, but, assuming that food is available, they can eat. Entitlement can cause big problems in the workplace (Harvey & Martinko, 2009), so managers might want to provide food to employees or wait to schedule potentially-contentious meetings until after lunch. Similarly, if a person wants to cut back on his or her own entitlement, that person should make sure to eat before interacting with others or making important decisions. It is interesting to note that, although certainly due to a host of factors, organizations with readily-available food, such as Google, are also known for having unentitled, grateful, and satisfied employees. One interesting question for future research is how our findings extend to people who feel chronically hungry or extremely hungry. It is unclear whether our results would generalize to individuals who are trying to lose weight and who are thus moderately hungry all the time, or to individuals who do not have access to enough food and who are involuntarily underfed and possibly extremely hungry. A second question for future research is whether other basic physiological drives, besides hunger, would produce the same effects. We predict they would. For example, thirst or a craving for drugs among those dependent on drugs should have similar effects. People in these states should also be highly focused on themselves and on satisfying their lower-order needs. In our future research, we will manipulate thirst and examine whether entitlement increases as thirst increases. In conclusion, in this paper, we demonstrated how a physiological state, hunger, could be a source of entitlement. Understanding the relationship between hunger and entitlement is important because it provides one easy way to potentially modify a persons sense of entitlement, and reducing entitlement could have many positive consequences in the workplace, school, or at home.

REFERENCESBurt, S. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Tackett, J. L. 2012. Should social aggression be considered antisocial? Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 34: 153-163.Butori, R. 2010. Proposition for an improved version of the consumer entitlement inventory. Psychology & Marketing, 27: 285-297. 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.Crocker, J., & Canevello, A. 2008. Creating and undermining social support in communal relationships: The role of compassionate and self-image goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95: 555-575.

Fisk, G. M. 2010. I want it all and I want it now! An examination of the etiology, expression and escalation of excessive employee entitlement. Human Resource Management Review, 20: 102-114.

Fisk, G. M., & Neville, L. B. 2011. Effects of customer entitlement on service workers physical and psychological well-being: A study of waitstaff employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16: 391-405.Gable, P., & Harmon-Jones, E. 2010. The blues broaden, but the nasty narrows: Attentional consequences of negative affects low and high in motivational intensity. Psychological Science, 21: 211-215.

Green, M. W., Elliman, N. A., & Rogers, P. J. 1996. Hunger, caloric preloading and the selective processing of food and body shape words. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35: 143-151.

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: 1193-1204.

Harvey, P., Harris, K. J., Gillis, W. E., & Martinko, M. J. In press. Abusive supervision and the entitled employee. The Leadership Quarterly.Harvey, P., & Martinko, M. J. 2009. An empirical examination of the role of attribution in psychological entitlement and its outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 459-476.

Howell, A. J., Dopko, R. L., Turowski, J. B., Buro, K. 2011. The disposition to apologize. Personality and Individual Differences, 51: 509-514.Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. 2010. Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extension built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5: 292-314.

Kopp, J. P., Zinn, T. E., Finney, S. J., & Jurich, D. P. 2011. The development and evaluations of the Academic Entitlement Questionnaire. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 44: 105-129.

Mackinnon, A., Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Korten, A. E., Jacomb, P. A., & Rodgers, B. 1999. A short form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: Evaluation of factorial validity and invariance across demographic variables in a community sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 27: 405416.Malhotra, D., & Gino, F. 2011. The pursuit of power corrupts: How investing in outside options motivates opportunism in relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 559-592.Maslow, A. H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50: 370-396.

Moeller, S. J., Crocker, J., & Bushman, B. J. 2009. Creating hostility and conflict: Effects of entitlement and self-image goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45: 448-452.

Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Hyare, H., & Lee, S. 1998. Selective attention to food-related stimuli in hunger: Are attentional biases specific to emotional and psychopathological states, or are they also found in normal drive states? Behavior Research and Therapy, 36: 227-237.

Morris, J. S., & Dolan, R. J. 2001. Involvement of human amygdala and orbitofrontal cortext in hunger-enhanced memory for food stimuli. Journal of Neuroscience, 21: 5304-5310.

Nelson, L. D., & Morrison, E. L. 2005. The symptoms of resource scarcity: Judgments of food and finances influence preferences for potential partners. Psychological Science, 16: 167-173.

OBrien, E. H., Anastasio, P. A., & Bushman, B. J. 2011. Time crawls when youre not having fun: Feeling entitled makes dull tasks drag on. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37: 1287-1296.Pettijohn, T. F., Ahmed, S. F., Pettijohn, T. F. 2012. Hunger and social motivation: Hungry people are less interested in social activities than satiated people. Current Psychology, 31: 1-5.

Pettijohn, T. F., Sacco, D. F., & Yerkes, M. J. 2009. Hungry people prefer more mature mates: A field test of the environmental security hypothesis. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 3: 216-232.Piech, R. A., Hampshire, A., Owen, A. M., & Parkinson, J. A. 2009. Modulation of cognitive flexibility by hunger and desire. Cognition & Emotion, 23: 528-540.Read, D., & van Leeuwen, B. 1998. Predicting hunger: The effects of appetite and delay on choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76: 189-205.

Snow, J. N., Kern, R. M., & Curlette, W. L. 2001. Identifying personality traits associated with attrition in systematic training for effective parenting groups. The Family Journal, 9: 102-108.

Swami, V., & Tove, M. J. 2006. Does hunger influence judgments of female physical attractiveness? British Journal of Psychology, 97: 353-363.

Tamborski, M., Brown, R. P., & Chowning, K. 2012. Self-serving bias or simply serving the self? Evidence for a dimensional approach to narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 52: 942-946.

Tomlinson, E. C. 2013. An integrative model of entitlement beliefs. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 25: 67-87.

Twenge, J. M. 2006. Generation me: Why todays young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled and more miserable than ever before. New York: Free Press.

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. 2009. The narcissism epidemic: Living in the age of entitlement. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Zitek, E. M., Jordan, A. H., Monin, B., & Leach, F. R. 2010. Victim entitlement to behave selfishly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98: 245-255.