Class Social Situation and Cultural Value Prediction Factors of the Academic Entitlement of College Students

Abstract

This study measured the level of academic entitlement in college students using a performance promotion goal questionnaire, an academic entitlement group norm questionnaire, a cultural value orientation questionnaire, and an academic entitlement questionnaire, with 297 college students. The research findings of this study could be used to identify teachers’ behavior and class situation factors that could significantly predict the academic entitlement of college students. The academic entitlement group norm could be regarded as a normative mechanism affecting the relationship between individualism and academic entitlement, as well as between performance promotion goals and academic entitlement. Finally, the research results were discussed, and relevant suggestions were proposed for schools, teachers, and future research.

Keywords

academic entitlement group norm performance promotion goal individualism collectivism

Introduction

Many previous studies have discussed the factors that influence the academic entitlement of students and have focused on the correlation among parenting styles, personal psychological traits, academic motivation, student behavior, and academic entitlement, to identify the high-risk groups for academic entitlement. For example, academic entitlement is related to the over-protective parenting style of parents who force their children to achieve academic goals (Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, & Farruggia, 2008; Hong, Chiu, & Cheng, 2012). Second, academic entitlement is significantly positively correlated with psychological entitlement, non-exploitive entitlement, exploitive entitlement, social extraversion, a sense of inferiority, neuroticism, anxiety, and depression (Greenberger et al., 2008; Hong et al., 2012; Kopp, Zinn, Finney, & Jurich, 2011; Reinhardt, 2012), and it is also significantly correlated with self-esteem, task orientation, social commitment, and belief in external control (Achacoso, 2002; Greenberger et al., 2008; Hong et al., 2012; Kopp et al., 2011). Furthermore, academic entitlement is significantly positively correlated with the performance avoidance goal orientation, the performance approach orientation, the mastery avoidance orientation, extrinsic motivation, and academic anxiety (Greenberger et al., 2008; Reinhardt, 2012). In contrast, academic entitlement is significantly negatively correlated with the mastery orientation goal, academic self-efficacy, and effort (Achacoso, 2002; Kopp et al., 2011; Reinhardt, 2012). As a result, college students with high academic entitlement are more likely to have unadapted internal psychological traits and learning results. However, most studies have focused on Western culture, and they lack the support of college student samples from Asian societies. This study discussed the influence of cultural value on academic entitlement using college students in Taiwan as the research participants.

Academic entitlement is a concept independently formed by applying psychological entitlement, which is a personality variable that does not change with time and situation, to academic situations (Achacoso, 2002; Chowning & Campbell, 2009; Ciani, Summers, & Easter, 2008; Greenberger et al., 2008). Academic entitlement varies according to the situation, and it has the characteristics of academic context (Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004; Hong et al., 2012). Studies have shown that academic entitlement may vary with class, suggesting that it is affected by the class variable, which may come from the variation of teachers or class content (Ciani et al., 2008). Based on the above reasons, it is necessary to further understand the role of class social situation factors in academic entitlement.

In fact, there may be many alternative theoretical orientations for the discussion of academic entitlement, but in essence, the subject of academic entitlement in college students is quite novel, and no coherent theoretical model has yet been developed. As a result, this study identified the class social situation and cultural value factors that may affect the academic entitlement of college students based on previous researches on academic entitlement, with a focus on previous quantitative researches. Specifically, this study was provided to analyze teachers’ performance promotion goals, the academic entitlement group norm, and the effect of cultural value on academic entitlement, so as to lay the foundation for a preliminary investigation of the class social situation and cultural value factors that may affect academic entitlement.

Performance Promotion Goals and Academic Entitlement

Students with a high level of academic entitlement are mainly characterized by the requirements for obtaining positive academic results. Students with a high level of academic entitlement will push themselves to achieve the goal of obtaining high performance in school. In other words, students with high academic entitlement may expect to get more positive academic results based on comparison and competition. If teachers emphasize class competition, they will be likely to abet the students’ belief of exploiting others’ academic entitlement. The students’ academic entitlement can be affected in several ways. First, when teachers emphasize competition between students based on the principle of equality, if the students complete more work they will feel they should get more rewards or better results (Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). Therefore, if teachers have the behavior of promoting performance goals, the students will compete with each other. The more hardworking a student is, the more inclined he or she will be to think that he or she should have a higher score, and the higher his or her academic entitlement score will be. The reference standards for comparison will also affect personal entitlement beliefs (Major, 1994). The similarity to others’ proximity (Major, 1987, 1989; Singer, 1981) and perception (Adams, 1965) will help individuals to judge the deserved results. Specifically, in a competitive class environment, students are more likely to make social comparisons. In the comparison process, if the students perceive that their close friends can achieve high scores without putting in any effort, they will expect that they should get similar results. Empirical researches also support the above viewpoints; for example, academic entitlement is significantly positively correlated with the performance approach orientation and is significantly negatively correlated with the mastery approach orientation (Reinhardt, 2012). Performance promotion goals mean that the classmates emphasize the competition and comparison between related abilities (Ryan & Pintrich, 1997), and when the students perceive that class context greatly emphasizes the achievement of performance goals, they will be more likely to have results that go against learning and learning achievements (Ames, 1992; Ryan & Patrick, 2001).

Performance Promotion Goals and the Academic Entitlement Group Norm

Researches have suggested that when students feel they are accepted in the school environment, they will be more likely to regard their classes as supporting mastery and improvement (Anderman, 2003) or pursuing mastery goals (Anderman & Anderman, 1999). However, if the students do not feel comfortable and safe, a school environment of social comparison and competition may lead to the pursuit of personal performance goals (Anderman & Anderman, 1999). A is inherently a social field; students do not study separately but are surrounded by many schoolmates. Students will pursue social and academic goals in the classroom context (Juvonen & Murdock, 1995; Urdan & Maehr, 1995; Wentzel, 1993). Teachers not only teach knowledge in class but also assist in the construction of the class social environment through creating norms and rules for the social behavior of their students, and the academic tasks assigned by teachers may encourage or hinder the cooperation and knowledge sharing among students (Ryan & Patrick, 2001). Therefore, when teachers greatly emphasize competition and academic comparison, it not only gives rise to personal pursuits of positive academic results but is also more likely to produce groups that form the academic entitlement group norm. Little importance has been attached to the role of the teacher in the formation of the academic entitlement group norms of the students in their classes. In short, it is necessary to further analyze whether teachers who encourage performance promotion goals may create class group norms in the pursuit of positive academic results.

Academic Entitlement Group Norm and Academic Entitlement

Communication may become a channel for groups to convey norms and values (Kramer, 1989). The concept of social norms may also have an influence on the behavior of the group members, and social norms are generally considered to have legitimacy and social sharing principles for acceptable and expectable behaviors (Birenbaum & Sagarin, 1976). For example, if students in a class get “good” results on a test, the teacher might change their score, adjust the test difficulty, or change the teaching rules. The students will internalize such role behaviors in the class and form a normative climate of obtaining high scores and special treatment through the interactions among classmates. Such academic entitlement is generally considered normal and acceptable.

Generally speaking, people naturally form their role evaluation in the group, and find their position in the group. When individuals feel that they are accepted by the group and are a member of it, they will incorporate the attributes of the group members into a part of their self-concept; they will follow the group standard in the group norm, and they will regard it as a reference point for personal ideas, attitudes, and behaviors (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Turner, 1991). Social influence has the most significant influence on individual behaviors. When a group of teens is highly salient (White, Hogg, & Terry, 2002), or if an individual agrees that others are important for personal self-worth (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001), then the teens will be more likely to be affected by the behavior of other group members (Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Metzger, 2006). Therefore, when most classmates agree that the teachers should give students high scores and adjust their teaching, such actions will also affect the individuals’ responsibility for actual academic achievements. The individuals will think that some rewards are deserved and can be obtained without the need for actual individual academic performance, effort, or careful study (Jackson, Singleton-Jackson, & Frey, 2010; Twenge, 2006). The relationship between social identity and academic entitlement has not been empirically investigated; however, the academic entitlement group norm may be an important class social factor influencing academic entitlement of college students.

Cultural value Orientation and Academic Entitlement

Personal culture orientation refers to an individual’s personal cultural value that is independent of the major cultural orientation of an individual’s society. Individualism and collectivism represent the common characteristics of known culture, whereas idiocentrism and allocentrism are used to measure the concept at the individual level to reflect the cultural value (Triandis, 1989). An individualist regards himself or herself as independent of others, pays attention to personal achievement, and thinks that the individual’s goal system should take precedence over the group goal. In contrast, a collectivist regards the individual as an insertion into the social context, pays attention to interpersonal harmony, and will obey the group goal if the personal goals conflict with the group goal.

Previous studies on academic entitlement have mostly been discussed in a Western cultural context, which has more personal cultural value characteristics, namely, an emphasis on independence, personal goals, and self-reliance (Hofstede, 1980; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). Such research complies with the fact that students’ entitlements have self-centered traits (Lippmann, Bulanda, & Wagenaar, 2009). An individual’s cultural value may also have an influence on the academic entitlement of college students. Studies on European countries and the United States have found that college students have gradually increasing academic entitlement. Colleges and universities in Taiwan are faced with an enrollment supply and demand imbalance, which is coupled with the cultural tint of collectivism in Taiwanese university students. Individuals are interdependent with others, and the group identity is more important than personal identity (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Therefore, according to the viewpoint of Triandis et al., both individualism and collectivism are independent concepts (Triandis, Leung, Villareal, & Clack, 1985). Whether the personal behavior of college students is influenced by the emphasis on cultural value, group needs, and goals more than by personal needs and goal satisfaction; whether the individuals are less aware of their academic entitlement; or whether their perception of academic entitlement has cross-cultural characteristics should be further discussed.

Cultural Value Orientation and Academic Entitlement Group Norm

Group norms have many definitions. One definition refers to the guide for acceptable human behaviors that are expected in a given situation (Birenbaum & Sagarin, 1976). Another group norm emphasizes the people’s role. For example, Birenbaum and Sagarin thought that norms provide order and significance, even in fuzzy, uncertain, or threatening situations. Such significant norm sources include the behavior of others or the expected personal behaviors in a situation, because the behavior types of others will show what is appropriate and what is inappropriate in the situation. The two different viewpoints generate the difference between norms (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990; Pillutla & Chen, 1999). Norms include implicit norms and perceived norms. Implicit norms refer to the behavioral expectations for individuals in a certain situation, whereas perceived norms refer to observing the behavioral pattern of others in a certain situation.

Generally speaking, individuals will generally follow the group norms for two main reasons (Insko, 1985). First of all, people hope that they are right, and norms act as a correct and appropriate behavior pattern that begins in early childhood. Second, people hope to win social identity or social acceptance, and they follow the suggestions of most people or norms, which reduces the risk of being rejected by the group. Collectivists pay more attention to whether the interpersonal harmony and individuals can be suitable for groups, so they are more likely to have appropriate behaviors that are based on the perception of social clues. Studies have shown that collectivists will pay more attention to group norms, and that they are more likely to guide their behaviors using the group norm (Haberstroh, Oyserman, Schwarz, & Kühnen, 2002). If individualists perceive that a class has more academic entitlement norms, they will be more likely to consider whether to follow the spending and profit of the group norms. If they comply with the group norms, it will help them to complete their personal goal of obtaining a high score, and they will be more likely to show perceived behaviors similar to the norms. If they comply with the group norms but fail to reach their personal goals, their behavioral performance will more likely be inconsistent with the group norms. Empirical researches have shown that the group norm perception is significantly positively correlated with collectivism and significantly negatively correlated with individualism (Chen, Wasti, & Triandis, 2007). The academic entitlement group norm referred to in this research is the individualistic group norm.

Method

Participants

The pretest in this study covered a total of 208 effective participants, including 111 men (53.4%) and 97 women (46.6%). The effective formal sample in this study covered 297 college students, including 182 students in two urban universities (accounting for 61.3% of the total) and 115 students in rural universities (38.7%). The samples included 179 male students (60.3%) and 118 female students (39.7%). Regarding the year of study, 70 of the respondents were freshmen (23.6%), 69 were sophomores (23.2%), 78 were juniors (26.3%), and 80 were seniors (26.9%). The main age group was 18 to 22, which conformed to the requirement of university students in this study.

Measures

The variables used in this study included gender, performance promotion goals, academic entitlement group norms, cultural value orientation, and academic entitlement. Except for gender and grade, the measurement variables used a 6-point Likert-type scale for measurement (with scores ranging from 1 = completely inconsistent to 6 = completely consistent).

Performance promotion goal questionnaire

The performance promotion goal questionnaire was compiled by referring to the support climate questionnaire of Landau and Meirovich (2011), the class social environment concept questionnaire of Patrick, Ryan, and Kaplan (2007), and the class social environment questionnaire of Ryan and Patrick (2001). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.74 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ²(15) = 794.89 (p < .001), indicating that factor analysis was applicable. A total of one factor and six questions were obtained, suggesting that the mutual competition and comparison of schoolmates could totally explain 51.88% of the variation. The internal consistency Cronbach’s α coefficient of all questions was .86.

Academic entitlement group norm questionnaire

The academic entitlement group norm questionnaire was compiled by the researchers in reference to the group norm of Terry and Hogg (1996), so as to evaluate the degree of academic entitlement group norm of the students in the class reference group. The questionnaire consisted of eight questions. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy quantity was 0.87 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ²(28) = 1,537.71 (p < .001), indicating that factor analysis was applicable. A total of two factors were obtained: normative behavior (five questions) and normative expectation (three questions), which could totally explain 74.83% of the variation. The internal consistency Cronbach’s α coefficient of all questions was .93, and those of the sub-questionnaire were .92 and .93, respectively.

Cultural value orientation questionnaire

The cultural value orientation questionnaire was used by the researchers to evaluate the cultural value orientation of college students. It was based on the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism of Triandis and Gelfand (1998). The questionnaire had a total of nine questions. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.88 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ² (36) = 1,166.682 (p < .001), indicating that factor analysis was applicable. A total of two factors were obtained: collectivism (five questions) and individualism (four questions), which could totally explain 70.28% of the variation. The internal consistency Cronbach’s α coefficient of all questions in the questionnaire was .90, and those of the sub-questionnaire were .89 and .84, respectively.

Academic entitlement questionnaire

The academic entitlement questionnaire was based on the academic entitlement questionnaire of Hong et al. (2012). There were a total of 10 questions, which were divided into the three factors of exploitive academic entitlement beliefs, non-exploitive academic entitlement beliefs, and individualized academic entitlement beliefs. The internal consistency Cronbach’s α coefficient of all questions was .94, and those of each sub-questionnaire were .82, .88, and .87, respectively.

Data Analysis

This study had a cross-sectional design, and the participants completed a paper-and-pencil self-report survey. Descriptive statistical data consisted of the self-reported gender of the college students, the performance promotion goals, the academic entitlement group norm, the cultural value orientation, and academic entitlement. Bivariate correlations were used to evaluate the relationship between the measurement variables in this study. Structure equation modeling using AMOS 16.0 was then used to assess the relationships among the measurement variables.

As individualism and collectivism are two concepts that are independent of each other (Triandis et al., 1985), the pattern must be established after independent analysis. This study established an assumption model to investigate the relationship among the performance promotion goals, idiocentrism, allocentrism, academic entitlement group norms, and academic entitlement. The predictive variables included performance promotion goals, individualism, and collectivism. The intervening variables included the academic entitlement group norm, and the result variables included the academic entitlement. In addition, the maximum likelihood approach was used as the parameter estimation method of the assumption model in this study to determine the χ²/df, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of the applicable pointers of the model. The standard χ²/df should not be more than 3, the GFI needs to be higher than 0.9, the CFI needs to be higher than 0.95, and the RMSEA index needs to be lower than 0.08 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Bentler, 1988; Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hu & Bentler, 1999). The predictive and explanatory power of the model was tested as per the path coefficient and R² value.

Results

Descriptive Statistical Analysis and Correlation Analysis

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and coefficient correlations of the variables and the sub-questionnaires. The normal distribution test of variables in this research showed that both the deviation coefficient and kurtosis coefficient of eight measurement variables were lower than 1, which fell within the normal value range. On the whole, the path model established in this research could be further analyzed. According to the data in the table, most of the correlation coefficients between various sub-questionnaires were significantly correlated. Second, there was a significant correlation between most of the performance promotion goals, individualism, collectivism, academic entitlement group norms, and academic entitlement. It should be noted that there was no significant correlation between collectivism and academic entitlement group norm (r = .09, p > .05) or between collectivism and academic entitlement (r = .03, p > .05). On the whole, the path model established in this research could be further analyzed.

Table 1.

Summary of Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients (n = 297).

Variables		M	SD	I	II	III	IV	V	M	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
I Performance promotion goal	1 Performance promotion goal	19.66	5.96	1.00					19.66	5.96	0.03	0.77	1.00
II Individualism	2 Individualism	15.09	4.37	.27***	1.00				15.09	4.37	−0.18	0.15	.27***	1.00
III Collectivism	3 Collectivism	20.93	5.18	.22***	.55***	1.00			20.93	5.18	−0.58	1.15	.22***	.55***	1.00
IV Academic entitlement group norm	4 Normative behavior	28.01	7.79	.24***	.29***	.09	1.00		18.43	5.39	−0.63	0.91	.19***	.25***	.13*	1.00
IV Academic entitlement group norm	5 Normative expectation								9.58	3.32	−0.21	0.17	.25***	.28***	.01	.58***	1.00
V Academic entitlement	6 Exploitive academic entitlement beliefs	27.72	10.21	.28***	.18**	.03	.47***	1.00	7.45	3.21	0.49	0.15	.20***	.16**	−.07	.27***	.48***	1.00
	7 Non-exploitive academic entitlement beliefs								11.89	4.58	−0.04	−0.24	.25***	.18**	.09	.39***	.49***	.72***	1.00
	8 Individualized academic entitlement beliefs								8.38	3.53	0.06	−0.41	.30***	.15**	.04	.26***	.46***	.65***	.77***	1.00

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Assessing the Model Fit

The assumption model put forward in this research assumed that there was a significant relationship among the performance promotion goals of consciousness, individualism, collectivism, group norm, and academic entitlement of college students. In addition, even if this study did not develop assumption to explain the correlation between the three prediction variables, a significant covariant relationship was still allowed between them. The assumption model put forward in this research was a saturated model; therefore, this study first reviewed the standardized regression coefficients between variables. It was found that the regression coefficients for the prediction of academic entitlement with individualism (0.055), the prediction of academic entitlement with collectivism (−0.078), and the prediction of academic entitlement group norm with collectivism (−0.114) were not significant. Therefore, this article studied the three path coefficients and modified the model. The fitted values of the modified model were χ²/3(n = 297) = 1.578, p = .192, GFI = 0.994, CFI = 0.993, and RMSEA = 0.044, which were satisfactory, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Modified path model.

The direct effect of this research model was arranged in a descending order as follows. The direct effect of academic entitlement group norm on academic entitlement was 0.428, the direct effect of individualism on academic entitlement group norm was 0.246, the direct effect of performance promotion goals on academic entitlement was 0.176, and the direct effect of performance promotion goals on academic entitlement group norm was 0.168. The indirect effect of this study was arranged in a descending order as follows. The effect of individualism on academic entitlement was 0.105, and the effect of performance promotion goals on academic entitlement was 0.072. In addition, performance promotion goals and individualism could effectively explain 11.2% of the variation in the academic entitlement group norm, and performance promotion goals and academic entitlement group norm could effectively explain 24.9% of the variation in academic entitlement.

Mediation Analysis

This study found through further examination of the relationship between individualism, academic entitlement group norm, and academic entitlement that there was a significant direct effect between individualism and academic entitlement group norm (γ = .246, p < .001) and between academic entitlement group norm and academic entitlement (γ = .428, p < .001). There was also a significant indirect effect among academic entitlement group norm, individualism, and academic entitlement (z = 3.82, p < .001), suggesting that there was a complete mediation effect between academic entitlement group norm, individualism, and academic entitlement. More importantly, individualism could explain 63.58% of the variation in academic entitlement through the mediating variable academic entitlement group norm (Iacobucci, 2008).

Second, this study found through an examination of the relationship between performance promotion goals, academic entitlement group norm, and academic entitlement that there was a significant direct effect between performance promotion goals and academic entitlement group norm (γ = .168, p < .01) and between academic entitlement group norm and academic entitlement (γ = .428, p < .001). It was also found that there was a significant indirect effect among academic entitlement group norm, performance promotion goals, and academic entitlement (z = 2.80, p < .01), suggesting that there was a partial mediation effect among the academic entitlement group norm, performance promotion goals, and academic entitlement. More importantly, performance promotion goals could explain 29.00% of the variation in academic entitlement through the mediating variable academic entitlement group norm (Iacobucci, 2008).

Discussion

This study aimed to identify the class social situation and cultural value factors that may affect the academic entitlement of college students, and the class social situation and cultural value factors affect the academic entitlement, thereby establishing the path model affecting the academic entitlement of college students. The research findings showed that both the performance promotion goals of teachers and the academic entitlement group norm had a positive prediction effect on the academic entitlement of college students. Second, both performance promotion goals and individualism had a positive prediction effect on the academic entitlement group norm. It should be noted that both individualism and performance promotion goals could have a significant mediation effect on academic entitlement through the academic entitlement group norm. On the whole, the research findings not only facilitated an understanding of the basic knowledge on class social environments and the cultural value of college students’ academic entitlement but also expanded the knowledge of how to reduce the academic entitlement of college students.

The teachers’ performance promotion goals had a positive prediction effect on the academic entitlement of college students, suggesting that teachers emphasize mutual competition and academic comparison among students, which potentially contributes to the students’ expectation of obtaining positive academic results. The class social environment built by the performance promotion goals is negative and is significantly negatively correlated with the students’ academic performance and self-regulated learning (Ryan & Patrick, 2001). Therefore, in the situation where the teacher emphasizes competition and academic comparison, the students’ academic performance will be increasingly lower, and the students will only be able obtain positive academic results by asking the professor to adjust the class teaching rules and by preparing examinations for the students. The research findings supported the concept that performance promotion goals may have a positive influence on students’ academic entitlement. In teaching situations, teachers should avoid promoting mutual competition among the students and should avoid the behavior of academic comparison. Future researches could further analyze the effect of promoting mastery goals and teachers’ supporting behavior on the academic entitlement of college students, so as to provide a reference for college teachers to formulate intervention plans.

This study found that the teachers’ performance promotion goals had a positive prediction effect on the academic entitlement group norm. Many studies have found that classes where there is an emphasis on performance goals have a negative effect on the students’ academic ability, cause destructive behavior, and improve the pursuit of individual performance goal (Ames & Archer, 1988; Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Ryan & Patrick, 2001; Urdan, Midgley, & Anderman, 1998). When teachers emphasize the importance of positive academic results and mutual comparisons between peers, it will not only enhance the personal pursuit of positive academic results but will also promote peers to have shared values and beliefs and shape the academic entitlement of the student group. Specifically, when teachers emphasize performance goals, to obtain positive academic results, the students’ class will mutually form the consensus of requesting the teachers to simplify the examination questions and the report contents, to be relaxed in class, and to change the teaching contents, methods, and expectations. Therefore, teachers and schools should enhance the intellectual climate of the schools and emphasize the importance of mastery goals, so that the students can enjoy learning and attach more importance to the interests and pursuits of humanistic, artistic, and scientific academic activities, instead of blindly emphasizing the importance of positive academic results.

The research findings of this study showed that the academic entitlement group norm significantly affected the academic entitlement of college students, suggesting that if the students in a class were used to requesting the teachers to simplify examination questions and report contents, be relaxed in class, and change the teaching contents, methods, and expectations, such actions would be likely to increase the students’ academic entitlement. Hence, teachers must modify the academic entitlement group norm existing in the class social context, thus allowing the students to perceive that education is not like other consumer transactions. The students should be further allowed to know that blindly pursuing a high score is a mistake, and that it is important to learn from the mistakes found in the test results. Especially when classmates have behaviors consistent with the academic entitlement norm, teachers should specifically show the teaching norm and evaluation methods, so as to prevent the students from having the wrong expectations. It should be noted that these situations are more likely to arise with graduate teaching assistants and new teachers (Cordell, Lucal, & Morgan, 2004). However, at present, to improve the retention rate of students and reduce their turnover rate, private schools in Taiwan tend to give students higher scores and special treatment. A comparison of the scores for students’ academic entitlement in public and private schools should be considered in future researches.

The research findings showed that individualism positively influenced the academic entitlement group norm. When individualists perceive that there are more academic entitlement norms in the class, they will believe that following the group norms will help them complete the individual goal of getting a high score, and they will be more likely to comply with behavioral performance that is similar to the class entitlement group norm; therefore, individualists tend to support the academic entitlement group norm. The research findings of this study showed that there was a significant correlation between collectivism and the academic entitlement group norm . Collectivists pay more attention to interpersonal harmony, which can be suitable for groups. They may worry about being scolded by the teacher due to the requirements of achieving high scores and individualistic group norms causing teachers to change their teaching requirements, thereby resulting in an adverse effect. Hence, those with a collectivism tendency are less likely to support the individualistic academic entitlement group norm.

Finally, it should be noted that according to the viewpoint of Triandis (1989) on individualism and collectivism and the research findings that student entitlement has self-centered characteristics (Lippmann et al., 2009), this study found that collectivism had a negative prediction effect on academic entitlement. The research findings of this study may have reflected that collectivists attach importance to interpersonal harmony and group goal achievement, that they do not only pay attention to personal goals and needs, and that they are unable to support entitlement with self-centered characteristics. At the same time, the research findings of this study did not show that individualism had a positive prediction effect on academic entitlement, mainly because the relationship between individualism and academic entitlement is subject to the mediation effect of academic entitlement norms, thereby failing to show a significant prediction effect. Furthermore, the relationship between the teachers’ performance promotion goals and academic entitlement is also subject to the mediation effect of the academic entitlement norm. This facilitated an understanding of the mechanism of the respective influence of individualism and performance promotion goals on academic entitlement, suggesting that the relationship between individualism and academic entitlement, as well as between the teachers’ performance promotion goals and academic entitlement still depends on the academic entitlement group norm. Both the class in the teachers’ performance promotion goals and more individualistic college students will increase academic entitlement by forming a consensus or norm between classmates that teachers should change their teaching methods and give students positive academic results. This study further compared the indirect effect of individualism and the teachers’ performance promotion goals on academic entitlement, finding that high individualistic characteristics are more likely to arise from the class in the teachers’ performance promotion goals, and that these characteristics could even affect the level of academic entitlement. Therefore, in higher education, teachers should not only avoid emphasizing competition and social comparison but also reduce the students’ collective behavior of generally forming inappropriate expectations and consensuses for the teachers, to reduce the academic entitlement of college students.

Directions for Future Research

The research findings of this study focused on an investigation of the influence of class situation factors and cultural value factors on the academic entitlement of college students; however, it failed to further compare the influence of personal factors, class situation factors, and cultural value factors, which are also likely to affect the academic entitlement of college students; therefore, it is necessary to construct a model of the influence of situational factors and personal factors on the academic entitlement of college students. Moreover, the research findings of this study showed that performance promotion goals can significantly positively predict the academic entitlement group norm and academic entitlement. An investigation of the teacher behaviors that could reduce academic entitlement is worthy of follow-up study and in-depth analysis, so as to provide a reference for education departments to formulate future intervention plans. Third, it remains to be seen if teachers generally feel they should give students high academic achievements, and give students differential treatment, thereby further affecting the quality of higher education. Specifically, it remains to be seen if teachers have academic entitlement beliefs. This problem is quite worthy of analysis in future studies.

Limitations

There were a number of restrictions that may have affected the results of this study. First, the cross-sectional nature of this study and the self-reported results of the college students limited this study to making causal conclusions. Future longitudinal studies and experimental studies can effectively validate the causal relationship between the cultural value orientation of college students, teachers’ behavior, academic entitlement group norms, and academic entitlement of college students. Second, this study extracted college student samples from three private colleges in central and northern Taiwan using the purposive sampling method. It is still necessary to cautiously infer the applicability of the research findings to other samples. Perhaps future researches can expand the number of sampled schools, as well as the range and quantity of research samples, to validate the research findings of this study.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Fu-Yuan Hong, PhD, is an associate professor in the Graduate Institute of Professional Development in Education, based at Da-Yeh University in Taiwan. His research has focused primarily on issues associated with high maintenance behavior, facebook addiction, mobile phone addiction and the use of smart phones.

Der-Hsiang Huang, PhD, is a Professor and Chair, Graduate Institute of Professional Development in Education and Center for Teacher Education, Da-Yeh University. His research has focused primarily on issues associated with adolescent psychology, educational psychology and educational issues.

Min-Pei Lin, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling at National Taiwan Normal University in Taiwan. His current research interests are Internet addiction and non-suicidal self-injury. He has published in cyberpsychology, behavior, and social networking.

Hung-Yu Lin is an associate professor in the Department of Occupational Therapy at I-Shou University. His research interest focuses on ADHD, attention issues and developing testing scales.

References

Achacoso

M. V.

(2002). What do you mean my grade is not an A? An investigation of academic entitlement, causal attributions, and self-regulation in college students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/2486

Adams

J. S.

(1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 266-300). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Ames

(1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Ames

Archer

(1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.

Anderman

L. H.

(2003). Academic and social perceptions as predictors of change in middle school students’ sense of school belonging. Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 5-22.

Anderman

L. H.

Anderman

E. M.

(1999). Social predictors of changes in students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 21-37.

Bagozzi

R. P.

(1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 76-94.

Bentler

P. M.

(1988). Theory and implementation of EQS: A structural equations program. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Birenbaum

Sagarin

(1976). Norms and human behavior. New York, NY: Praeger.

10.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

11.

Campbell

W. K.

Bonacci

A. M.

Shelton

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.

12.

Chen

X. P.

Wasti

S. A.

Triandis

H. C.

(2007). When does group norm or group identity predict cooperation in a public goods dilemma? The moderating effects of idiocentrism and allocentrism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 259-276.

13.

Chowning

Campbell

N. J.

(2009). Development and validation of a measure of academic entitlement: Individual differences in students’ externalized responsibility and entitled expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 982-997.

14.

Cialdini

R. B.

Reno

R. R.

Kallgren

C. A.

(1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026.

15.

Ciani

K. D.

Summers

J. J.

Easter

M. A.

(2008). Gender differences in academic entitlement among college students. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 169, 332-344.

16.

Cordell

R. M.

Lucal

Morgan

(2004). Quick hits for new faculty: Successful strategies by award winning teachers. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

17.

Crocker

Wolfe

C. T.

(2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 2001, 593-623.

18.

Greenberger

Lessard

Chen

Farruggia

S. P.

(2008). Self-entitled college students: Contributions of personality, parenting, and motivational factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 1193-1204.

19.

Haberstroh

Oyserman

Schwarz

Kühnen

(2002). Is the interdependent self a better communicator than the independent self? Self-construal and the observation of conversational norms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 323-329.

20.

Hofstede

(1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

21.

Hogg

M. A.

Abrams

(1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London, England: Routledge.

22.

Hong

F. Y.

Chiu

S. L.

Cheng

K. T.

(2012). The study of academic entitlement: Development of measurement scale and the relationships between relational variables among Taiwan university students—Eight colleges in north and central Taiwan as an example. Journal of Educational Research and Development, 8, 141-174.

23.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

24.

Iacobucci

(2008). Mediation analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

25.

Insko

C. A.

(1985). Conformity and group size: The concern with being right and the concern with being liked. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 41-50.

26.

Jackson

D. L.

Singleton-Jackson

J. A.

Frey

M. P.

(2010). Report of a measure of academic entitlement. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 1(3), 53-65.

27.

Juvonen

Murdock

T. B.

(1995). Grade-level differences in the social value of effort: Implications for self-presentation tactics of early adolescents. Child Development, 66, 1694-1705.

28.

Kopp

J. P.

Zinn

T. E.

Finney

S. J.

Jurich

D. P.

(2011). “I can’t believe she gave me a C!” Measuring entitlement in higher education. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 44, 105-129.

29.

Kramer

R. M.

(1989). When the going gets tough: The effects of resource scarcity on group conflict and cooperation. In Lawler

Markovsky

(Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 7, pp. 151-177). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

30.

Landau

Meirovich

(2011). Development of students’ emotional intelligence: Participative classroom environments in higher education. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 15(3), 89-104.

31.

Lippmann

Bulanda

R. E.

Wagenaar

T. C.

(2009). Student entitlement: Issues and strategies for confronting entitlement in the classroom and beyond. College Teaching, 57(4), 197-203.

32.

Major

(1987). Gender, justice, and the psychology of entitlement. In Shaver

Hendrick

(Eds.), Sex and gender (pp. 266-300). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

33.

Major

(1989). Gender differences in comparisons and entitlement: Implications for comparable worth. Journal of Social Issues, 45(4), 99-115.

34.

Major

(1994). From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role of social comparisons, legitimacy appraisals, and group memberships. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 293-355.

35.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

36.

Patrick

Ryan

A. M.

Kaplan

(2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 83-98.

37.

Pillutla

Chen

X. P.

(1999). Social norms and cooperation in social dilemmas: The effects of context and feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 81-103.

38.

Reinhardt

(2012). Conceptualizing academic entitlement: What are we measuring? (Unpublished thesis). University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada.

39.

Ryan

A. M.

Patrick

(2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 437-460.

40.

Ryan

A. M.

Pintrich

P. R.

(1997). Should I ask for help? The role of motivation and attitudes in adolescents’ help seeking in math class. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 329-341.

41.

Singer

(1981). Reference groups and social evaluations. In Rosenberg

Turner

R. H.

(Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives (pp. 66-93). New York, NY: Basic Books.

42.

Smetana

J. G.

Campione-Barr

Metzger

(2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255-284.

43.

Terry

D. J.

Hogg

M. A.

(1996). Group norms and the attitude–behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 776-793.

44.

Triandis

H. C.

(1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.

45.

Triandis

H. C.

(1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

46.

Triandis

H. C.

Gelfand

M. J.

(1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118-128.

47.

Triandis

H. C.

Leung

Villareal

Clack

F. L.

(1985). Allocentric versus idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 395-415.

48.

Triandis

H. C.

McCusker

Hui

C. H.

(1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006-1020.

49.

Turner

J. C.

(1991). Social influence. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

50.

Twenge

J. M.

(2006). Generation me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled—And more miserable than ever before. New York, NY: Free Press.

51.

Urdan

T. C.

Maehr

M. L.

(1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65, 213-243.

52.

Urdan

T. C.

Midgley

Anderman

E. M.

(1998). The role of classroom goal structures in students’ use of self-handicapping strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 101-122.

53.

Walster

G. W.

Berscheid

(1978). Equity: Theory & research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

54.

Wentzel

K. R.

(1993). Motivation and achievement in early adolescence: The role of multiple classroom goals. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 4-10.

55.

White

K. M.

Hogg

M. A.

Terry

D. J.

(2002). Improving attitude–behavior correspondence through exposure to normative support from a salient ingroup. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 91-103.