Sense of Entitlement: Implications in the Classroom of a

Consumer Attitude Toward Education

Nicole Judice Campbell & Karolyn Budzek
njudice@ou.edu, kbudzek@psychology.ou.edu
University of Oklahoma

Introduction
 Student incivility in and around the classroom
e.g., arriving late to class and/or leaving early, answering cell phones
during lecture, speaking rudely to the professor, curtly-worded
emails demanding notes from a missed lecture
 Impersonal nature of large classes
 Lack of knowledge of what it takes to succeed in college,
particularly freshmen
 Individual difference of entitlement to an education:
expectations of success without a personal responsibility for
achieving that success

Measures
Sense of Entitlement scale
 Pool of potential items were generated and administered to two
samples of Intro to Psych students (N = 362 and 819)
 15 items were retained, capturing two relevant but uncorrelated
components (r = .065 and -.007)
Entitlement component:
 Captures an expectation of success without responsibility for
achieving that success
 “My professors should reconsider my grade if I am close to the
grade I want.”
 11 items; λ = 6.595 and 5.392; Cronbach’s α = .818 and .760
Approach component:
 Captures a tendency toward interaction with instructor
 “I speak with teaching assistants and/or my professors during
office hours.”
 4 items; λ = 3.935 and 3.526; Cronbach’s α = .808 and .770
 The approach component can identify important distinctions
between types of students who score high on entitlement.
Creating a vignette measure
 Generated academic scenarios thought to evoke entitled
behaviors; students responded to open-ended questions
 Selected open-ended statements thought to capture a
continuum of student responses
 Vignette Measure: 8 vignettes, students rate multiple response
options
 Likelihood you would engage in this behavior
 Appropriateness of this behavior
Subject-matter experts rate the vignette responses
 21 instructors, 0 to 37 years teaching experience
 Rated vignette responses on appropriateness (0-5)
 Items selected based on rater consensus
 highly inappropriate (M < 1, 18 items)
 highly appropriate (M > 4, 22 items)
Inappropriate responses:
 “The fact that the professor is unwilling to compromise would
make me move on to his superior.”
 18 items, λ = 4.627, Cronbach’s α = .856
 Likelihood and appropriateness ratings
Appropriate responses:
 “I would read the book and ask another student for their notes.”
 22 items, λ = 5.347, Cronbach’s α = .808
 Likelihood and appropriateness ratings
Analyses:
 Predicting vignette responses (appropriate and inappropriate
behavior)
 Entitlement and approach scores
 Conscientiousness (John, 1990)
 Psychological entitlement (W.K. Campbell, 2004)
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

Discussion
 Entitlement and students’ own ratings of appropriateness predict
their likelihood ratings for inappropriate responses.
 Entitlement and approach predict students’ appropriateness ratings
for inappropriate responses.
 The newly created scale, with components of entitlement and
approach, has shown to be useful in predicting the likelihood of engaging
in inappropriate behavior.
 The Sense of Entitlement scale possesses a reliable structure and
predictive power for self-reported behaviors.
 Identifiable individual differences exist in students’ tendency to
engage in uncivil academic behaviors.
 Behavioral manifestations of entitlement plague professors,
especially in larger freshmen-level courses such as Introductory
Psychology.
 A better understanding of the putative causes of student incivility and
entitled behaviors will inform best practices in higher education.

Strongly disagree 1-------2-------3-------4-------5-------6-------7 Strongly agree

‘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.
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.