Beyond Deserving More

Abstract

Psychological entitlement is defined as the “stable and pervasive sense that one deserves more and is entitled to more than others.” Research has shown those high in entitlement tend to behave selfishly, experience greater workplace conflict, and are low on the Big Five trait of Agreeableness. In a series of four studies, we demonstrate that psychological entitlement also predicts negative views of out-groups: It predicted lower liking for a rival student body, prejudice toward lesbians and gay men, negative attitudes toward female equality among male participants, and modern racism toward African Americans. Given that entitlement was unrelated to in-group identification or favoritism, these results suggest that it may be possible for those higher in entitlement to hold more negative views of out-groups without stronger in-group identification. Combined with previous findings, these studies suggest that the role of “others” in entitlement goes beyond merely believing that one deserves more than them.

Keywords

psychological entitlement narcissism modern racism prejudice homophobia

The construct of psychological entitlement has received growing attention in the popular media, with some stating that we are suffering an “entitlement epidemic” within our culture (Zaslow, 2007). Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, and Bushman (2004) noted that a LexisNexis^™ search for the phrase “sense of entitlement” among major newspapers yielded approximately 400 hits for the year 2003. At this writing, the same search yielded over well over 10,000 hits since 1990, with half of them occurring since 2010.

What does a person with a “sense of entitlement” look like? How does he or she think, feel, and behave? Actual research on psychological entitlement has not kept pace with its invocation by the popular press, but a picture is beginning to emerge. Campbell et al. (2004) define psychological entitlement as the “stable and pervasive sense that one deserves more and is entitled to more than others” (p. 31). To quantify this construct, the authors developed and validated the 9-item, single-factor Psychological Entitlement Scale (PES) that measures the degree to which one endorses beliefs such as “I honestly feel I’m just more deserving than others,” “Things should go my way,” and “I feel entitled to more of everything.”

An entitled person is one who tends to behave selfishly. Campbell et al. (2004) found that high scorers on the PES took more candy from a bowl purportedly intended for young children in a Developmental Laboratory (Study 5), rated themselves as deserving higher salaries than their coworkers in a hypothetical company (Study 6), took more in a commons dilemma (Study 7), and reported behaving selfishly in romantic relationships (Study 8). Zitek, Jordan, Monin, and Leach (2010) also found that high PES scorers were more willing to engage in selfish behaviors (e.g., biking on a crowded sidewalk) and less willing to engage in helpful behaviors, such as volunteering or giving blood, than low scorers.

These tendencies speak to the entitled person’s self-centric orientation, the “I deserve” component and at first glance, make entitlement appear very similar to narcissism. Campbell et al. (2004) did find that scores on the PES are correlated with scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988). However, 75% of the variance of the PES is unshared with the NPI. Therefore, the construct of psychological entitlement as measured by the PES seems to tap into something beyond the narcissist’s self-centric view. Indeed, the “…more than others” component of Campbell et al.’s definition appears to necessitate the presence of “others”—others who serve as some sort of comparison group to inform the highly entitled as to whether one is truly getting all that he or she deserves.

But what exactly is the role of “others” in psychological entitlement? Do others serve as a rather benign, static barometer to inform one of what he has? Or does thinking that one deserves more than others involve a measure of disparagement toward those others? Thus far, the research points to the latter. Harvey and Martinko (2009) found that job entitlement predicted conflict with supervisors. Exline, Baumeister, Bushman, Campbell, and Finkel (2004) found that narcissistic entitlement (as measured by the Entitlement [ENT] subscale of the NPI) was linked to lower levels of forgiveness, while Exline and Zell (2009) found that the combination of psychological entitlement and self-affirmation predicted higher levels of unforgiveness. Linkages between the Big Five trait of Agreeableness and entitlement have also been found: Campbell et al. (2004; Study 4) found a negative correlation between PES scores and Agreeableness, and Exline et al. (2004) found the same link between narcissistic entitlement and Agreeableness. Pryor, Miller, and Gaughan (2008) found that scores on both the PES and on the ENT subscale of the NPI were negatively correlated with all six facets of Agreeableness as measured by the NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992)—Trust, Straightforwardness, Altruism, Compliance, Modesty, and Tender-mindedness. They state that both scales capture the degree to which one holds “a cold detached view of others. In fact, the PES…is remarkable in that it is almost entirely composed of antagonism from a Five-factor model perspective” (p. 519). Thus, psychological entitlement appears to combine both a self-centric orientation (“I deserve…”) with a negative orientation toward others (“…more than others”).

One way to further test whether psychological entitlement really does combine self-centrism with negative views of others would be to examine how entitlement relates to thinking about the self and others at the group level—that is, how it factors into attitudes about in-groups and out-groups. Intergroup bias, or the difference between how much one values one’s own group compared to how much one values other groups, can take the form of in-group favoritism or out-group derogation (Brewer & Brown, 1998; Turner, 1978), with both operating independently of one another (Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 1989). One can think his or her in-group is better than other groups, without necessarily derogating those out-groups. On other hand, active out-group derogation can and does occur in the forms of dislike for and prejudice toward the out-group.

Thus far, no studies have been conducted that examine how psychological entitlement relates to either in-group identification or to attitudes toward out-groups. We hypothesized that entitlement’s seemingly unfavorable view of others could promote negative views of out-groups, but that it should be unrelated to feelings of “we” that are inherent in in-group identification due to its self-centric “me” component. Therefore, we believe it is possible that those high in psychological entitlement can experience negative views of out-groups in the absence of any strong in-group identification.

The overarching purpose of this series of studies was to determine whether psychological entitlement predicts negative attitudes toward others at the group level; when possible, we measured in-group identification/favoritism in order to ascertain whether those negative feelings could occur in their absence. Our first study utilized student bodies at other universities as out-groups. Our remaining studies utilized groups that would be meaningful beyond the college campus: homosexual men and women (Study 2) and African Americans (Studies 3 and 4).

Study 1: Entitlement and College Out-Groups

Four hundred and five (287 female and 118 male) undergraduate students completed the PES, and items measuring attitudes toward their college in-group as well as two collegiate out-groups. Three items measured how much in general participants (a) liked students from a nearby university considered to be their chief rival, (b) liked students from a nearby university not considered to be a rival, and (c) liked students from their own university. In addition, 9 items adapted from Hogg and Hains (1996) measured identification with their student body in-group. This index had very high internal reliability within our sample (α = .95). All in-group and out-group items were measured on a 9-point Likert-type scale.

As predicted, psychological entitlement was not correlated with either liking for the in-group (r = −.042, p = .402) or with in-group identification (r = −.019, p = .707). Entitlement was also unrelated to liking for the nonrival out-group (r = −.023, p = .644). Given the statistical power of our sample, these near-zero correlations provide initial evidence that entitlement is not related to either liking for or identification with one’s in-group; entitlement also is not related to feelings about “benign” or nonthreatening out-groups as represented by the nonrival collegiate student body. However, entitlement did negatively correlate with liking for the rival out-group (r = −.116, p = .019). Although the difference between this correlation and the correlation between entitlement and liking for the nonrival out-group was not significant (z = −1.503, p = .133), these results suggest that psychological entitlement does not predispose one to dislike out-groups in general, but only those that are personally relevant.

To further investigate the relationship between psychological entitlement and feelings about the rival out-group, we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis entering variables that could potentially influence ratings of the rival out-group on the first step: gender, in-group identification, and liking for the nonrival out-group. Both in-group identification and liking for the nonrival out-group predicted liking for the rival group at this step, with stronger identification with the in-group negatively predicting liking for the rival out-group, and liking for the nonrival group positively predicting liking for the rival group. Adding PES scores on the second step significantly added to the model (F _change = 5.345, p = .021), with higher entitlement scores predicting lower liking for the rival out-group. To test whether one’s level of entitlement could interact with one’s level of in-group identification, such that high levels of entitlement and in-group identification might predict lower scores for the out-group, we computed an interaction term by mean-centering entitlement and in-group identification and then multiplying the two terms. This interaction term was entered on the third step and did not significantly add to the model (F _change = 1.842, p = .176; see Table 1).

Table 1.

Hierarchical Regression Predicting Liking for Rival Out-Group.

	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
Predictor	β	t	p	β	t	p	β	t	p
Gender	.078	1.574	.116	.075	1.521	.129	.073	1.496	.135
In-group ID	−.109	−2.190	.029	−.110	−2.232	.026	−.110	−2.228	.026
Like nonrival group	.167	3.377	.001	.165	3.350	.001	.165	3.365	.001
PES				−.113	−2.312	.021	−.121	−2.461	.014
In-group ID × PES							−.066	−1.357	.176
R ²	.041			.053			.058
F _change	5.688***			5.345*			1.842

Note. PES = Psychological Entitlement Scale. Gender is coded as 1 = male; 2 = female.

*p < .05. ***p = .001.

These results offer some initial evidence for our hypotheses: (a) that entitlement seems to predispose one to have less positive or even negative views of others at the group level and (b) that those less positive views can occur in the absence of in-group favoritism or identification. The fact that entitlement predicted lower liking only for the rival student body suggests that those high in psychological entitlement are not predisposed to dislike the “other” as personified by any out-group, but only out-groups that are personally relevant. Study 2 was conducted to replicate these findings with more culturally meaningful identities related to sexual orientation and gender.

Study 2: Entitlement, Homosexuality, and Feminism

Four hundred and nineteen (278 female and 141 male) undergraduate students completed the PES, and the short version of the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale (ATLG-S; Herek, 1988) in which agreement with statements such as “Lesbians just can’t fit into our society,” and “I think male homosexuals are disgusting” is measured on a 9-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree; higher scores indicate greater prejudicial attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Internal reliability of the scale within our sample was high (α = .88). Participants also responded to five forced-choice (yes/no) statements assessing feminist attitudes (e.g., “Women and men should be paid equally for the same work;” Zucker, 2004). The number of items endorsing feminist attitudes was summed, with higher scores indicating greater belief in female equality.

A hierarchical regression was conducted using scores on the ATLG-S as the criterion variable, with gender entered on the first step and PES scores entered on the second step. Gender significantly predicted prejudice toward lesbians and gay men, with males exhibiting greater levels of prejudice (β = −.215, p < .001). Entitlement scores independently predicted prejudice on the second step (β = .196; F _change = 17.383, p < .001), with those higher in psychological entitlement exhibiting greater prejudice toward lesbians and gay men (see Table 2). It should be noted that this large a sample has a high likelihood of including lesbians and gay men; however, we did not ask for participants’ sexual orientation. We assume that those identifying as such would not endorse negative attitudes of their in-group; if we had been able to only analyze responses from those identifying as heterosexual, we believe that the results might have been even stronger.

Table 2.

Hierarchical Regression Predicting Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men.

	Model 1			Model 2
Predictor	β	t	p	β	t	p
Gender	−.215	−4.490	<.001	−.199	−4.220	<.001
PES				.196	4.169	<.001
R ²	.046			.084
F _change	20.160***			17.383***

Note. PES = Psychological Entitlement Scale. Gender is coded as 1 = male, 2 = female.

***p < .001.

Because we did not ask participants to indicate their sexual orientation, it was not possible to test the hypothesis that entitlement is not related to in-group identity or favoritism. However, measuring attitudes toward female equality did provide an imperfect facsimile of in-group favoritism among women, and another (imperfect) indicator of potential out-group bias among men. We say “imperfect” because the endorsement of female equality does not directly measure the extent to which women identify with or favor their gender, nor does it directly measure male dislike or prejudice toward women. However, we made the following predictions with this measure: (a) if psychological entitlement is unrelated to in-group favoritism, PES scores should be unrelated to endorsement of female equality among female participants and (b) if entitlement predicts out-group prejudice, these scores should be negatively correlated with those attitudes among male participants. These predictions were confirmed: The correlation between PES scores and endorsement of female equality was not significant for women (r = −.058, p = .334), but was for men (r = −.256, p = .002); the difference between these correlations approached significance (z = 1.9532, p = .051).

Low endorsement of female equality among entitled males could be interpreted in several ways. It could indicate that entitled men view women as inferior to themselves and not deserving of the benefits to which they themselves are entitled, which would be a form of out-group bias. It could alternatively point toward viewing female equality as a potential threat. Similarly, entitlement’s lack of relationship to endorsement of equality among female participants could indicate a lack of relationship to in-group favoritism, or it could indicate that the entitled women in the sample do not worry about their female counterparts, as long as they get what they deserve. Therefore, even though the results for both men and women were those predicted by a combination of out-group derogation/lack of in-group favoritism, they need to be interpreted with caution.

In summary, Studies 1 and 2 provide some initial evidence that psychological entitlement predicts negative views not only toward others in general (Exline et al., 2004; Pryor et al., 2008) but also toward meaningful out-groups in the absence of in-group favoritism. In order to ascertain whether this outlook is due to the self-centrism component of entitlement (“I deserve…”) or to its implied presence of others (“…more than others”) we wished to compare entitlement with another self-centric construct—the construct of narcissism. Because it has been argued that the NPI measures different facets of narcissism (Ackerman et al., 2011), some of which are adaptive (Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2004), we divided the NPI into the three facets as identified by Ackerman et al.: Leadership/Authority, Grandiose Exhibitionism, and Entitlement/Exploitativeness. Ackerman et al. had found that the Leadership/Authority facet of narcissism generally predicted positive outcomes, such as self-esteem, drive, and self-control; whereas the Grandiose Exhibitionism and especially the Entitlement/Exploitativeness facets predicted maladaptive outcomes, such as Machiavellianism and a lack of self-control. Their analyses conducted with the Entitlement/Exploitativeness facet and the PES show that the two scales are correlated, but that they tap into somewhat different aspects of personality, with the Entitlement/Exploitativeness facet appearing “to be capturing a somewhat more vulnerable aspect of personality than the Campbell et al. scale” (Ackerman et al., 2011, p. 79).

There were two purposes for conducting Studies 3 and 4. The first was to further extend the findings of Studies 1 and 2 to see whether entitlement predicted negative attitudes toward another culturally meaningful group—that of African Americans among a largely White sample. The second purpose was to explore whether it is the self-centric piece of entitlement that drives these attitudes, or its emphasis upon “others.” We reasoned that if negative attitudes toward out-groups stem from the focus on the self, both the PES and the “me” oriented Leadership/Authority facet of the NPI should predict them. On the other hand, if it is the presence of “the other” implied by psychological entitlement, only the PES and perhaps the Entitlement/Exploitativeness facet of the NPI should predict these attitudes.

Studies 3 and 4: Entitlement, Narcissism, and Modern Racism

For Study 3, a total of 386 (294 female and 92 male) undergraduate students completed the PES, the NPI from which the three facets identified by Ackerman et al. (2011) were calculated, and McConahay’s Modern Racism Scale (1986). This scale measures a subtle version of prejudice against Blacks; participants indicate the degree to which they agree with statements such as “Blacks are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights,” “Blacks should not push themselves where they are not wanted,” and “Over the past few years, blacks have gotten more economically than they deserve.” Higher scores indicate higher levels of this subtle form of prejudice and have predicted different prejudicial behaviors ranging from the concrete (i.e., more negative evaluations of a Black interviewer than a White interviewer; Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, & Howard, 1997; Study 3), to the more abstract (greater abstraction of language when describing negative behavior performed by Black compared to White characters; Schnake & Ruscher, 1998). The majority of our sample (91.5%) identified themselves as part or fully Caucasian, with 3.1% identifying themselves as part or fully African American. Only participants who did not identify in any way as African American were included in our final sample, providing a sample of 374 participants (91 men and 283 women), 94.4% of whom identified as part or fully Caucasian.

A hierarchical regression was conducted with modern racism as the criterion variable. Gender was entered as a first step, scores from the three facets of the NPI were entered as the second step, and scores on the PES were entered as the third step. Gender did not significantly predict racism at the first step (β = −.139, p = .067). The model predicted a significant amount of the variance when the three facets of the NPI were entered (F _change = 3.073, p = .029); however, the only facet to significantly predict racism was the facet of Entitlement/Exploitativeness (β = .222, p = .004). Finally, the addition of PES scores on the third step again added to the model, significantly predicting racism scores (β = .247; F _change = 9.579, p = .002; see Table 3).

Table 3.

Hierarchical Regression Predicting Modern Racism (Study 3).

	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
Predictor	β	t	p	β	t	p	β	t	p
Gender	−.139	−1.845	.067	−.139	−1.859	.065	−.136	−1.854	.065
NPI—Leadership				.011	.137	.891	.011	.151	.880
NPI—Grandiose				−.022	−.299	.765	−.110	−1.404	.162
NPI—Entitle/Exp.				.222	2.928	.004	.168	2.214	.028
PES							.247	3.095	.002
R ²	.019			.069			.119
F _change	3.404			3.073*			9.579**

Note. NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory; PES = Psychological Entitlement Scale. Gender is coded as 1 = male, 2 = female.

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

For Study 4, 352 (264 female and 88 male) undergraduate students completed the same measures; 89% identified themselves as part or fully Caucasian and 6.9% identified themselves as part or fully African American. Only participants who did not identify as part or fully African American were included in the final sample, providing 328 participants (83 men and 245 women), 94.5% of whom were White. The same hierarchical regression that was used in Study 3 was again run. This time, the regression revealed a significant effect of gender on racism at the first step (β = −.185, p =. 001) with males exhibiting greater prejudice than females. Entering the three facets of narcissism again led to a significant change in the model (F _change = 4.483, p = .004), and the only facet to significantly predict racism at Step 2 was the facet of Entitlement/Exploitativeness (β = .145, p = .009). On the third step, PES scores significantly predicted racism (β = .235, F _change = 16.894, p < .001). In this sample, the Entitlement/Exploitativeness facet of narcissism ceased to be a significant predictor on this step (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Hierarchical Regression Predicting Modern Racism (Study 4).

	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
Predictor	β	t	p	β	t	p	β	t	p
Gender	−.190	−3.427	.001	−.185	−3.391	.001	−.191	−3.581	<.001
NPI—Leadership				.054	.931	.353	.035	.611	.542
NPI—Grandiose				.087	1.482	.139	.040	.687	.492
NPI—Entitle/Exp.				.145	2.632	.009	.090	1.615	.107
PES							.235	4.110	<.001
R ²	.036			.076			.124
F _change	11.741**			4.483*			16.894***

Note. NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory; PES = Psychological Entitlement Scale. Gender is coded as 1 = male, 2 = female

*p < .01. **p = .001. ***p < .001.

Discussion

Those who are willing to indicate that they deserve more than others on the PES have been identified in prior research as those who are also willing to engage in selfish behaviors such as taking candy meant for children, taking more for themselves in a commons dilemma (Campbell et al., 2004), biking on a crowded sidewalk, and being less willing to behave altruistically (Zitek et al., 2010). These behaviors could be explained in several ways: Perhaps the entitled person fails to notice or think of others and is only aware of her own needs. Or maybe the entitled person does notice others but fails to consider their needs. Or, perhaps she considers the needs of others but dismisses them as less important than her own. All of those reasons see the self as central, without necessarily actively disliking others. However, those same behaviors can also be explained by a more active, negative view of others—the predisposition to actively distrust, disregard, or dislike others. As Pryor et al. (2008) stated, entitlement appears to involve a “cold, detached view of others” as well as antagonism toward them.

Our four studies offer converging evidence for that view. We found a consistent and generalizable relationship between psychological entitlement and negative attitudes toward meaningful others at the group level. Entitlement predicted dislike for a rival student body (but not a nonrival student body), a lack of endorsement of female equality among male participants, prejudice against homosexual men and women, and a subtle form of racism against African Americans in two predominantly White samples. The relationship between entitlement and negative out-group attitudes was particularly robust when measuring attitudes toward homosexuals and African Americans, groups that have been historically discriminated against and are culturally meaningful. Studies 3 and 4 suggest that the negative attitudes do not hail from self-centrism but rather from the view of “others.” It appears that the “other” in psychological entitlement is not simply a static, abstract target one deems less deserving than the self. Rather, our research found that entitlement also brings with it the predisposition to experience a more actively negative attitude toward others manifested at the group level.

Psychological entitlement has been linked with greater aggression, which by definition takes a negative stance toward the “other,” but only after an ego threat was presented. Campbell et al. (2004; Study 9) found that higher scores on the PES predicted longer and louder bursts of white noise as retaliation toward an insulting confederate—but entitlement was unrelated to aggression in the absence of insult. Additionally, there is a body of research linking narcissism to aggression (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Bushman et al., 2009; Martinez, Zeichner, Reidy, & Miller, 2008; Twenge & Campbell, 2003). However, Reidy, Zeichner, Foster, and Martinez (2008) found the Entitlement and Exploitativeness subscales of the NPI to best predict aggression, not the other subscales. So it appears that the construct of entitlement, as measured by the PES and by the subscales/facets of the NPI, contains an element of latent hostility that requires some sort of threat to bring it to the surface. In the aggression studies mentioned previously, the threat came in the form of an insult or social rejection. In the four studies we present, the threat was less overt: It came in the form of a rival student body, of potential gender equality among male participants, of historically persecuted groups who are currently fighting for equal civil rights. Dislike for a nonrival student body who posed no threat did not emerge. These findings indicate that psychological entitlement does not predispose one to dislike all out-groups, but only those that may be perceived as a potential threat. They may also indicate that entitlement could involve a heightened sense of vigilance for potential threats that other individuals and groups may pose.

It is noteworthy that we found no relationship between psychological entitlement and in-group favoritism, neither when the in-group was comprised of fellow students at the same university (Study 1), nor fellow women among female participants (Study 2, although we admit that this is an imperfect measure). Because of entitlement’s apparent lack of relationship to in-group favoritism, the prejudice it predicts does not appear to stem from a social dominance orientation, with its emphasis on the power of the in-group over out-groups. The Social Dominance Orientation Scale (SDO; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994) has been found to predict a variety of expressions of in-group favoritism, including nationalism, patriotism, and cultural elitism. While SDO describes a way of seeing the world as strongly divided into in-groups and out-groups, our results suggest that a strong identification with the in-group is not necessary for the entitled person to hold negative attitudes toward meaningful out-groups. Although an “us/them” orientation is very often the precursor of prejudice, this may not be the case for the entitled person to view meaningful out-groups negatively. We offer the possibility that those high in psychological entitlement may be predisposed to view the world in a “me/them” fashion instead, seeing “them” in a negative light when the out-group is viewed as a potential threat without necessarily feeling a strong attachment to the in-group.

Finally, we would like to address the possibility that the relationship between psychological entitlement and dislike for out-groups stems from a lack of social desirability orientation. The disregard for responding in a socially desirable way could explain both higher scores on the PES as well as lower ratings of out-groups. However, there are several reasons why we believe this is not the case. First, entitlement did not predict lower ratings of a nonrival out-group in Study 1, demonstrating that these ratings are not the result of a response bias. Second, Campbell et al. (2004; Study 2) tested the scale’s relationship to socially desirable responding and found that scores on the PES were not related to scores on the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (Paulhus, 1991), a global measure of social desirability. Third, other studies investigating different forms of prejudice have also found a lack of relationship between prejudicial responses and social desirability. For instance, Herek (1988) found that scores on the ATLG were not predicted by social desirability as measured by the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Research by Aosved and Long (2006) on the relationships between rape myth acceptance and several forms of prejudice, including racism and homophobia, were not affected by inclusion of Marlowe–Crowne scores. Thus, we feel that the relationships we uncovered between psychological entitlement and negative views of meaningful out-groups are not the result of measurement artifacts, but instead reflect a predisposition to view others negatively among those high in psychological entitlement. Research demonstrating that high entitlement correlates with low agreeableness (Campbell et al., 2004; Study 4) and all of its facets (Pryor et al., 2008) show that entitlement does appear to predispose one to negative views of others. Our research adds to that body of knowledge by demonstrating that those negative views extend to others at the group level.

Another reason why we feel that the results reported here indicate entitlement’s relationship to negative out-group attitudes is the replication of these findings across four different samples. Not only were the results highly similar across four separate samples (dislike for/prejudice toward an out-group) but also the findings were consistent across different out-groups. Those out-groups included a rival student body, homosexual men, and women (despite the assumed inclusion of homosexual men and women in that sample), women (for male participants in Study 2), and African Americans among two predominantly White samples. We are confident that other studies of this nature would reveal similar results, particularly if those studies allow participants to feel that their responses are as anonymous as possible. Each of our samples provided their self-reports of entitlement, narcissism, and ratings of different out-groups in an online mass testing session in the privacy of whatever venue they chose. We assume that the privacy afforded in this manner of assessment would encourage more truthful responding.

Should future research reveal that the entitled person is predisposed to view the world in a “me/them” rather than an “us/them” fashion, the entitled person may be found to experience several types of interpersonal problems. In addition to selfish behavior in relationships (Campbell et al., 2004) and conflict with supervisors (Harvey & Martinko, 2009), experiencing antagonism toward others without the safety net of strong group belongingness may leave the entitled person feeling beleaguered and alone. Given the evidence for psychological entitlement having at its core the predisposition to view others in a negative fashion, the feeling of deservingness is a double-edged sword, perhaps bringing with it a steep price to pay in interpersonal relationships.

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.

References

Ackerman

R. A.

Whitt

E. A.

Donnellan

M. B.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Robins

R. W.

Kashy

D. A.

(2011). What does the Narcissistic Personality Inventory really measure? Assessment, 18, 67–87.

Aosved

A. C.

Long

P. J.

(2006). Co-occurrence of rape myth acceptance, sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism, classism, and religious intolerance. Sex Roles, 55, 481–492.

Brewer

M. B.

Brown

R. J.

(1998). Intergroup relations. In Gilbert

D. T.

Fiske

S. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 554–594). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

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.

Bushman

B. J.

Baumeister

R. F.

Thomaes

Ryu

Begeer

West

S. G.

(2009). Looking again, and harder, for a link between low self-esteem and aggression. Journal of Personality, 77, 427–446.

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.

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

(1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Crowne

P. P.

Marlowe

(1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.

Dovidio

J. F.

Kawakami

Johnson

Howard

(1997). On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 510–540.

10.

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.

11.

Exline

J. J.

Zell

A. L.

(2009). Empathy, self-affirmation, and forgiveness: The moderating roles of gender and entitlement. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 1071–1099.

12.

Gaertner

S. L.

Mann

Murrell

Dovidio

J. F.

(1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 239–249.

13.

Harvey

Martinko

M. J.

(2009). An empirical examination of the role of attributions in psychological entitlement and its outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 459–476.

14.

Herek

G. M.

(1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes towards lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451–477.

15.

Hogg

M. A.

Hains

S. C.

(1996). Intergroup relations and group solidarity: Effects of group identification and social beliefs on depersonalized attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 295–309.

16.

Martinez

M. A.

Zeichner

Reidy

D. E.

Miller

J. D.

(2008). Narcissism and displaced aggression: Effects of positive, negative, and delayed feedback. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 140–149.

17.

McConahay

J. B.

(1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In Dovidio

J. F.

Gaertner

S. L.

(Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91–126): Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

18.

Paulhus

D. L.

(1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In Robinson

J. P.

Shaver

P. R.

Wrightsman

L. S.

(Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic.

19.

Pratto

Sidanius

Stallworth

L. M.

Malle

B. F.

(1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.

20.

Pryor

L. R.

Miller

J. D.

Gaughan

E. T.

(2008). Comparison of the psychological entitlement sale and the Narcissistic Personality Inventory’s entitlement scale: Relations with general personality traits and personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 517–520.

21.

Raskin

Terry

(1988). Principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890–902.

22.

Reidy

D. E.

Zeichner

Foster

J. D.

Martinez

M. A.

(2008). Effects of narcissistic entitlement and exploitativeness on human physical aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 865–875.

23.

Schnake

S. B.

Ruscher

J. B.

(1998). Modern racism as a predictor of the linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 484–491.

24.

Sedikides

Rudich

E. A.

Gregg

A. P.

Kumashiro

Rusbult

(2004). Are normal narcissists psychologically healthy? Self-esteem matters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 400–416.

25.

Turner

J. C.

(1978). Social comparison, similarity and ingroup favouritism. In Tajfel

(Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 235–250). London, England: Academic Press.

26.

Twenge

J. M.

Campbell

(2003). ‘Isn’t it fun to get the respect that we’re going to deserve?’ Narcissism, social rejection, and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 261–272.

27.

Zaslow

(2007, July 19). Moving on the entitlement epidemic: Who’s really to blame? The Wall Street Journal, p. D1.

28.

Zitek

E. M.

Jordan

A. H.

Monin

Leach

F. R.

(2010). Victim entitlement to behave selfishly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 245–255.

29.

Zucker

A. N.

(2004). Disavowing social identities: What it means when women say, “I’m not a feminist, but ” Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 423–435.