Academic Entitlement: An individual difference measure
Karolyn Budzek Nicole Judice Campbell
Problem
The purpose of this research is to validate a
measure of “academic entitlement.” We define
academic entitlement as the tendency to
possess an expectation of academic success
without taking personal responsibility for
achieving that success. We recognize it as
incivility in the classroom (e.g., rude emails
demanding special consideration for a late
paper or extra credit opportunities to make up
for unexplained absences).
Research has investigated student incivility
and misbehavior as a function of the structure
of the academic setting (e.g., Tiberius & Flak,
1999). The current research investigates the
validity of academic entitlement as an individual
difference that may explain some of these
negative, self-serving behaviors.
Creating an individual difference measure
In order to develop a measure of academic
entitlement, participants across two samples
completed a series of questionnaires to receive
credit towards a course requirement. Measures
included forty-one potential academic
entitlement items.
Data from the first sample (N = 362) were
gathered for exploratory purposes and were
analyzed using principal axis factor analysis
with direct oblimin rotation. A second, larger
sample (N = 819) was gathered to reproduce
the factor structure of the entitlement items and
to validate the construct with several related
measures.
Factor analysis of the academic entitlement
items from the first sample revealed two
factors: entitlement and approach.
The entitlement factor consists of 11 items
(e.g., “I deserve to perform better than others in
school”) and has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.82.
The approach factor consists of four items
(e.g., “I speak with my professors after class)
and has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.81. Factor
analysis of the second sample revealed the
same factor structure with similar alphas (0.76
and 0.77 respectively).
University of Oklahoma
Predicting inappropriate student behaviors
In eight vignettes about academic situations,
students (N = 362) rated multiple response
options identified by instructors as inappropriate
or appropriate. The participants rated both the
appropriateness of each behavior and the
likelihood they themselves would engage in the
behavior.
Multiple regression analysis was used to
predict students’ likelihood and students’
appropriateness ratings for inappropriate and
appropriate items. In addition to the newly
developed entitlement and approach scores,
conscientiousness (John, 1990) and
psychological entitlement (Campbell, Bonacci,
Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004) were
considered as predictors.
 Likelihood of appropriate items
Ŷ = 1.047 + .118 (Conscientiousness) + .662
(Appropriateness) + e
R² = .477, F = 146.241, p < .001
 Appropriateness of appropriate items
Ŷ = 4.305 - .342 (ENT) + e
R² = .117, F = 43.276, p < .001
 Likelihood of inappropriate items
Ŷ = .827 + .285 (ENT) + .570
(Appropriateness) + e
R² = .626, F = 272.494, p <.001
 Appropriateness of inappropriate
items
Ŷ = .819 +.665 (ENT) + .109 (Approach) + e
R² = .462, F = 141.843, p <.001
Correlates with Sense of Entitlement scale
Sense of Entitlement
Entitlement Approach
Psychological Entitlement r = .450* r = .082
Entitlement subscale of NPI r = .362* r = -.088
Need for Cognition r = -.262* r = .181*
Locus of Control r = -.279* r = .328*
Comparative Self-Criticism r = .224* r = -.153*
* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Creating a vignette measure
In order to ensure the participants were
operating in similar stimulus space, a vignette
measure was developed to identify specific
uncivil student behaviors. We generated
academic scenarios thought to evoke entitled
behaviors and collected student responses to
open-ended questions. Open-ended
statements that appeared to capture a
continuum of student responses were selected
and retained to administer to participants in the
first sample (N = 362).
The vignette measure consists of 8
vignettes with 8-12 responses per situation.
Students rate each of these multiple response
options regarding the likelihood they would
engage in this behavior as well as the
appropriateness of this behavior.
Subject-matter experts (N = 21) rated the
vignette responses on appropriateness (0-5).
The experts were instructors recruited from
the psychology department, with teaching
experience ranging from 0 to 37 years.
The items used in subsequent analyses
were selected based on rater consensus: highly
inappropriate (M < 1, 18 items) and highly
appropriate (M > 4, 22 items).
The 18 inappropriate responses include
items such as “The fact that the professor is
unwilling to compromise would make me move
on to his superior” ( λ = 4.627, Cronbach’s α = .
856). The 22 appropriate responses include
items such as “I would read the book and ask
another student for their notes” ( λ = 5.347,
Cronbach’s α = .808).
1------2------3------4------5------6
Strongly disagree
‘Entitlement’
1.If I only read a textbook for a class, I deserve to do
well on the test.
2.I deserve to perform better than others in school.
3.I have the right to become angry with my
professors when they give me a grade I don’t
like.
4. Professors should not lecture on material not
covered in the textbook or assigned readings.
5.Because I pay tuition, I expect to pass the class
and get credit.
6. Because students pay tuition, they should have
the right to come to class if and when they
choose without a grade penalty.
7.Professors must be entertaining to be good.
Interpretation
Entitlement and students’ own ratings of
appropriateness of behavioral responses predict
their likelihood ratings for engaging in
inappropriate behaviors. Entitlement and
approach predict students’ appropriateness
ratings for inappropriate responses. The newly
developed scale possesses a reliable structure
and correlates with related measures, as
expected.
Academic entitlement correlates negatively
with need for cognition (Cacioppo & Petty,
1982), while psychological entitlement does not,
suggesting that academic entitlement captures
a more cognitive or academic construct, as
intended. The negative relationship with need
for cognition implies that students endorsing
these items are also “cognitive misers” –
perhaps in not enjoying effortful cognition, they
find themselves using the easiest strategy of
denigrating and blaming others when faced with
a self-threat.
We propose that the approach component
will serve to identify functional subgroups in
future research capturing behavioral
manifestations of entitlement. Those students
who hold entitled attitudes but never approach
a professor are conceptually distinct from
students who approach their professors in an
uncivil manner with complaints and requests.
Academic entitlement captures an aspect of
non-clinical narcissism with implications for
academic planning and intervention. Moreover,
it represents an important individual difference
in a frequently studied group: college students.
Strongly agree
8.Professors should cater to students’ wishes because
they are paid by students’ tuition.
9.Because I pay to see my doctor, I should not have to
wait for him/her.
10. The price of my tuition buys me course credit.
11. Students should not have to pay tuition twice if
they are forced to repeat a course.
‘Approach’
12. I speak with my professors after class.
13. I speak with teaching assistants and/or my
professors during office hours.
14. I ask professors questions for clarification during
and at the end of class.
15. I would approach a professor about a problem I’m
having in class.