Gender Differences in Academic Entitlement Among ...

This article was downloaded by: [183.221.58.111] On: 25 March 2014, At: 10:51 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20

Gender Differences in Academic Entitlement Among College Students a

b

Keith D. Ciani , Jessica J. Summers & Matthew A. Easter a

a

University of Missouri

b

University of Arizona Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Keith D. Ciani , Jessica J. Summers & Matthew A. Easter (2008) Gender Differences in Academic Entitlement Among College Students, The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 169:4, 332-344 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.169.4.332-344

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ terms-and-conditions

The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 2008, 169(4), 332–344 Copyright © 2008 Heldref Publications

Gender Differences in Academic Entitlement Among College Students

Downloaded by [183.221.58.111] at 10:51 25 March 2014

KEITH D. CIANI University of Missouri JESSICA J. SUMMERS University of Arizona MATTHEW A. EASTER University of Missouri ABSTRACT. Researchers have labeled today’s college students as perceiving themselves to be more entitled than ever before (J. M. Twenge, 2006). The results of the present study suggest that this may be true for college men, in particular, because they report significantly more academic entitlement than women do. In Study 1, the present authors used survey data from 1,229 undergraduate students across 18 classes at a large midwestern university to examine whether entitlement beliefs vary among classes. Results indicate that men reported significantly more entitlement than women did, and that this relation did not vary among classes. In Study 2, the authors used survey data from 93 undergraduate students across 10 classes, before and after they completed a semester-long course, to examine whether entitlement beliefs are fostered in the college setting. The results suggest that men perceived themselves as more entitled in the classroom than women did and that this relation did not change over time. The authors also discuss the implications for entitlement research in the academic domain. Keywords: college students, entitlement, gender, grade inflation

AT UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, professors often encounter students who perceive themselves as entitled to an A in their classes. Students may exhibit this sense of entitlement in the form of arguing about a grade, being surprised with a subpar grade, or believing that they do not have to put much effort into receiving a high grade. Why do college students have an inflated sense of entitlement regarding their grades? Researchers suggest that today’s college students are more selfish, superficial, and narcissistic than ever before (Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004; Foster, Campbell, & Twenge, Address correspondence to Keith D. Ciani, University of Missouri, College of Education, Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, 16 Hill Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, USA; [email protected] (e-mail). 332

Ciani, Summers, & Easter

333


2003; Gabriel, Critelli, & Ee, 1994; Hoover, 2007). Twenge (2006) believed that an inflated sense of entitlement is a subcomponent of general narcissism1. Twenge’s hypothesis is that students are increasingly inundated with self-inflating messages throughout grade school. These students then enter college with a sense of entitlement to grades, which is likely reinforced by evidence of grade inflation in U.S. colleges and universities (Mansfield, 2001; Rojstaczer, 2003). What remains unknown is the extent to which gender, year in college, and classroom context affect the academic entitlement beliefs of college students. In the present study, we aimed to examine the relations among these variables to gain a better understanding of college students’ perceived sense of entitlement for academic success. Academic Entitlement and Gender Existing research has shown that today’s youth and young adults perceive themselves as more entitled than ever before and that men perceive more entitlement in general than women do (Foster et al., 2003). Unfortunately, little research has been conducted on the relation between gender and self-perception of entitlement in the academic setting. The majority of existing research on gender and entitlement has been conducted in the occupational setting. Specifically, the results of many studies suggest that women generally earn less than men and report less income entitlement than men do (Desmarais & Curtis, 1997, 2001; Major, 1989). In an experimental study of gender and income entitlement, researchers found that women worked significantly longer and did more work but expected less pay than men did (Major, McFarlin, & Gagnon, 1984). Major (1989, 1993) has argued that decades of gender segregation, societal norms, and undercompensation for work have led women to use standards that are different from those of men when evaluating what they deserve. Achacoso (2002) extended research on entitlement to the academic setting by creating a scale that measures college students’ perceived sense of entitlement in two areas: expectations and negotiations. Entitlement expectations are the beliefs in which a student either expects to earn a high grade without putting much effort into the work or perceives him- or herself as deserving special treatment. Entitlement negotiations are the beliefs that the student is entitled to debate a grade with an instructor or demand a certain grade. Achacoso found that both forms of entitlement were positively correlated with external or maladaptive causal attributions. In addition, entitlement expectations were negatively correlated with metacognitive strategy use, whereas entitlement negotiations were positively correlated with both metacognitive strategy use and measures of academic achievement. Achacoso conducted preliminary work on the measurement and meaning of academic entitlement among a small sample of students. In the present study, we aimed to expand this research to gain a better understanding of the relation between self-perception of academic entitlement and gender by using a large sample of college students.

334

The Journal of Genetic Psychology


Academic Entitlement, Year in College, and Classroom Context In the present study, we were also interested in the effect of year in college and classroom context on students’ perceived sense of academic entitlement. First, a popular belief is that students’ self-perceived academic entitlement most likely begins at a young age through messages from their parents and teachers (Twenge, 2006). It has been argued that students who are about to attend college often believe that they are entitled to attend college and schools are obligated to ensure their success toward graduation (Lombardi, 2007). If this is the case, one may posit that college students’ entitlement beliefs continue over time. Alternatively, it is also possible that university experiences enable and even stoke their entitlement beliefs regardless of gender. A second and unexplored issue in the literature on academic entitlement is the effect of classroom context on the relation between gender and entitlement. In other words, is the effect of gender on academic entitlement consistent across varying classroom contexts, or are certain classrooms able to moderate the gender–entitlement relation? STUDY 1 Overview and Hypotheses In Study 1, we examined the relation between gender and entitlement across 18 classrooms to address two questions: (a) Do college men report significantly more academic entitlement than college women do? and (b) Can the classroom context affect the relation between gender and academic entitlement? We hypothesized that men would report significantly more academic entitlement than would women and that this relation would depend on classroom context. For example, a class devoted to the history of gender inequity may have no gender gap in student entitlement because the topic is addressed as part of the curriculum. Also, we hypothesized that academic entitlement may vary across year in college. More specifically, students’ sense of entitlement may be fostered or enervated as they progress through college. Method Participants and Procedure Participants were recruited through a mass mailing to faculty members who were teaching undergraduate classes at a research university in the Midwest. Of those we contacted, 18 professors agreed to have their classes surveyed. The research team administered the survey late in the semester so that students would have an adequate basis for rating their entitlement in each class. The survey was group-administered during regular class meetings. The university’s institutional review board approved the study. We did not offer students an incentive for


335

participating. Also, we surveyed only those students who provided informed consent, and incomplete surveys were removed, resulting in 1,229 usable cases. Of the participating students, approximately 52% were men, 87% were White, and 99% were undergraduates.


Instrument Academic Entitlement Scale (Achacoso, 2002). The Academic Entitlement Scale was designed to measure students’ perceived entitlement to special accommodations without reference to justness or unjustness of the situation. The 12-item scale comprises two factors: entitlement expectations (5 items; e.g., “Instructors should bend the rules for me”) and entitlement negotiations (7 items; e.g., “If I felt I deserved a higher grade, I would tell the instructor”). Students rated their level of agreement on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). We slightly modified the scale so that survey items referred to a specific class and instructor. See Table 1 for the complete item text and item descriptive statistics from Study 1, Research Question 1. Achacoso reported a reliability coefficient of .83 for the expectation scale and .91 for the negotiation scale. In the present study, Cronbach’s alphas for the expectations and negotiations scales were .84 and .86, respectively. Results Academic Entitlement, Gender, and Classroom Context With the nested structure of our data set (i.e., students nested within classrooms), the method of data analysis partly depended on whether students’ entitlement beliefs varied as a function of classroom membership. To test this, we used hierarchical linear modeling software (HLM; Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2004) to run a random-effects model (also known as Model 0, or the unconditional empty model) to estimate the proportion of between- and withinclass variances in a particular outcome variable (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The results from the random-effects model then allow for the calculation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The ICC is the proportion of variability in the dependent variable because of classroom differences or clustering (Snij ders & Bosker, 1999). Results indicated that 3% of the variance in entitlement expectations was because of clustering by a significant amount, χ2(18, N = 1,229) = 52.20, p < .001. Next, we used the same model with entitlement to negotiate and found that 2% of its variance was because of clustering also by a significant amount, χ2(18, N = 1,229) = 40.15, p < .01. In sum, over 95% of variance in entitlement beliefs occurred within classes, whereas less than 5% of the variance occurred between classes. Each ICC showed that students’ entitlement beliefs varied significantly by classroom, suggesting that something other than gender

336


TABLE 1. Item Text and Descriptive Statistics for the Academic Entitlement Scale (M. V. Achacoso, 2002)


Item Entitlement expectation 1. The instructor in this class should bend the rules for me. 2. The instructor in this class should modify course requirements to help me. 3. I should only be required to do a minimal amount of thinking to get an A in this class. 4. I should get special treatment in this course. 5. I cannot tolerate it when this instructor does not accommodate my personal situation. Entitlement negotiation 1. I would confront the instructor in this class to argue about my grade. 2. If I thought a test or assignment was unfair in this class, I would tell the instructor. 3. I would attempt to negotiate my grade with this instructor. 4. I would argue with this instructor to get more points on a test. 5. If I felt this instructor’s grading was unfair, I would tell the instructor. 6. If I felt I deserved a higher grade, I would tell this instructor. 7. I would demand that this instructor make an exception for me.

M

SD

2.34

1.60

2.48

1.63

2.18 1.86

1.46 1.32

2.60

1.61

3.65

1.94

4.66

1.83

3.81

1.83

3.76

1.91

4.81

1.77

4.57

1.80

1.97

1.35

Note. Item descriptive statistics are derived from Study 1, Research Question 1 (N = 1,229).

may account for these beliefs. Thus, we performed subsequent analyses with multilevel modeling to keep students nested within classrooms. After calculating the ICCs, we assessed the significance of the relation between gender and each entitlement variable. In this random coefficients model, gender is entered as a Level 1 predictor. One can view this analysis as somewhat analogous to calculating a regression equation 18 times, once for each classroom, before averaging the slopes and intercepts to arrive at an average withinclassroom relation between gender and each entitlement variable. The random coefficients model allows Level 1 slopes to vary randomly across Level 2 units, whereas no attempt is made to predict variation in slopes (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). These analyses allowed us to assess the effect of gender on entitlement and whether classroom context could account for variance in the gender–entitlement relation. Allowing the gender–entitlement slope to vary across Level 2 units was



337

necessary to test the assumption that context could influence this relation, rather than assuming it is the same for every class. Providing support for our hypothesis, gender was a significant, negative predictor (men coded as 0, women coded as 1) of students’ entitlement expectations, β = –.54, SE = 0.07, t(17) = –7.79, p < .001, and entitlement negotiations, β = –.31, SE = .07, t(17) = –3.66, p < .01. Results from both analyses also indicated that the gender–entitlement slope did not vary significantly across classrooms, and with gender in the model there was no remaining variance in either the slope or intercept that could be explained at the classroom level (i.e., Level 2; see Table 2). Thus, gender accounted for nearly all of the within-class and between-classes variances that previously existed in students’ entitlement beliefs. These findings suggest that men reported significantly more entitlement beliefs than women did, regardless of the classroom context. Because each entitlement item was in reference to a specific combination of class and professor that students had come to know for almost a semester, our findings may indicate that professors have little influence on the relation between gender and entitlement.2 Academic Entitlement and Year in College To examine the possible relation between year in college and entitlement, we conducted a separate factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) on each entitlement variable. The independent variables were gender and year in college (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior) with entitlement expectation and negotiation as the dependent variables. We removed 50 cases that either did not indicate year in college or had graduate status, resulting in 1,179 usable cases (424 freshmen, 400 sophomores, 183 juniors, 172 seniors). The first analysis revealed a significant effect of gender on entitlement expectations, F(1, 1171) = 44.54, p < .001, partial η2 = .04 (i.e., small effect size). Men (M = 2.53, SE = 0.05) reported significantly more entitlement expectations than women did (M = 2.04, SE = 0.05). There was not a significant effect for year in college or an interaction of gender by year in college. The second analysis revealed a significant effect of gender on entitlement negotiations, F(1, 1171) = 10.44, p < .01, partial η2 = .01 (i.e., small effect size). Men (M = 4.06, SE = 0.06) reported significantly more entitlement to negotiate than women did (M = 3.79, SE = 0.06). There was also a significant effect of year in college, F(3, 1171) = 4.46, p < .01, partial η2 = 0.01 (i.e., small effect size). Planned comparisons with the Bonferroni adjustment revealed that seniors (M = 4.18, SE = 0.09) reported significantly more entitlement to negotiate than freshmen did (M = 3.75, SE = 0.06) at p < .01. There was no significant interaction of gender by year in college. Results from the ANOVAs indicate that although men reported more entitlement than women did, there was not a consistent cross-sectional fluctuation in entitlement beliefs as a result of year in college.

Note. For all ts and χ2s, df = 17.

Entitlement expectation Fixed effect Intercept Gender Random effect Between classrooms (intercept) Gender slope Within classroom Entitlement negotiation Fixed effect Intercept Gender Random effect Between classrooms (intercept) Gender slope Within classroom

Variable

0.12 0.07

0.14 0.07

4.36 –0.31

SE

3.11 –0.54

Coefficient

30.93 –3.66

25.90 –7.79

t

< .001 < .01

< .001 < .001

p

0.09 0.01 1.69

0.06 0.00 1.31

Variance component

0.29 0.11 1.30

0.24 0.03 1.15

SD

TABLE 2. Random Coefficient Model With Entitlement Dependent Variables (N = 1,229; 18 classrooms)


20.79 18.58

16.74 12.76

χ2

.235 .353

> .50 > .50

p

338 The Journal of Genetic Psychology


339

STUDY 2


Overview and Hypotheses Because the results from Study 1 suggested that men reported more academic entitlement than women did regardless of classroom context, we were interested in assessing entitlement beliefs over time. In Study 1, we conducted a crosssectional assessment of entitlement by year in college. In Study 2, we examined student reports of entitlement over the course of one semester to more appropriately test whether entitlement beliefs are a relatively stable trait of students or are malleable throughout college. Given the results of Study 1, we hypothesized that entitlement beliefs would again be higher in men but would not vary over time. Method Participants and Procedure All 10 sections of a career-explorations class participated in the study (5 in the fall, 5 in the winter). The course was a two-credit, semester-long class for undergraduate students. The research team administered the student survey to all 10 sections during the first and final weeks of the semester. The survey was groupadministered during regular class meetings. The university’s institutional review board approved the study. No incentive was offered for participation. Only those students who provided informed consent were surveyed, and incomplete surveys were removed, resulting in 93 usable cases for our analyses. Of the participating students, approximately 62% were women, 90% were White, 87% were freshmen or sophomores, and 97% were in the age range of 18 to 22 years. Instrument Academic Entitlement Scale (Achacoso, 2002). We used the same scale for Study 2 as the one we used for Study 1. Cronbach’s alpha was .85 at Time 1 and .80 at Time 2 for the expectations scale and .89 at Time 1 and .88 at Time 2 for the negotiations scale. Results Assessing Change in Academic Entitlement Four independent samples t tests revealed no significant mean differences between fall and winter semester courses on both entitlement constructs, at either Times 1 or 2. Thus, all sections of the course were pooled for our analysis. As in Study 1, we wanted to know whether there was a clustering effect due to students being nested within 10 sections of the course. Four separate unconditional models


340


were run in HLM to assess both within-group and between-groups variance in each entitlement variable at each time point. The ICC in each of the four models was 0%. Moreover, there was not a significant amount of variance between classes to warrant further multilevel modeling procedures. This finding lends additional support to the results from Study 1 that entitlement may be more of a characteristic of the student rather than the immediate classroom context. Because there was no clustering effect, data were pooled, and two repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted with gender and time as the independent variables and entitlement expectations and negotiations as the dependent variables. Findings from each ANOVA were similar. Results revealed a significant effect of gender on entitlement expectations, F(1, 91) = 7.92, p < .01, partial η2 = .08 (i.e., medium effect size). Men (M = 2.49, SE = 0.15) reported significantly more entitlement expectations than women (M = 1.99, SE = 0.10). There was not a significant effect for time or an interaction of time by gender. Similarly, results revealed a significant effect of gender on entitlement negotiations, F(1, 91) = 14.57, p < .001, partial η2 = .14 (i.e., large effect size). Men (M = 4.13, SE = 0.20) reported significantly more entitlement to negotiate than women (M = 3.19, SE = 0.14). There was not a significant effect of time or an interaction of time by gender. Results from the repeated measures ANOVAs suggest that although men report more entitlement than women, academic entitlement did not change over the course of a semester (see Table 3). GENERAL DISCUSSION We aimed to examine students’ perceived academic entitlement and the possible influences of gender, time, and classroom context. In Study 1, we found that TABLE 3. Results of the Gender × Time Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Dependent variable Entitlement expectation Independent variable Men (n = 31) M SE Women (n = 62) M SE

Entitlement negotiation

Time 1

Time 2

Time 1

Time 2

2.44a 0.18

2.55a 0.17

4.00a 0.23

4.26a 0.21

1.96b 0.13

2.02b 0.12

3.09b 0.17

3.29b 0.15

Note. Means in the same column or row with different superscripts are statistically different at p < .05.



341

college men reported significantly more academic entitlement than women did, regardless of classroom context. Furthermore, and with the exception of seniors reporting significantly more entitlement to negotiate than freshmen did, there was not a systemic cross-sectional relation between year in college and entitlement. Similar to Study 1, Study 2 also showed that men reported significantly more entitlement than women did and that this relation did not vary by classroom context. Last, Study 2 assessed student reports of entitlement over the course of one semester and showed no significant change. In Study 1, we initially found a significant amount of between-classes variance in both forms of academic entitlement. However, after accounting for gender, these differences were nullified. This finding shows that the actual content of a particular class or the instructional and personality characteristics of the professor may have little effect on students’ academic entitlement. If the teacher or class content were to have played a role, we would have seen a significant amount of between-classes variance remain unexplained after we accounted for gender. Despite these findings, we suggest that future researchers continue to scrutinize the role of classroom context. It is possible that specific classes that address entitlement issues as part of the course curriculum (e.g., gender studies, race studies) affect students’ entitlement beliefs more than general studies classes do. We also found in Study 1 that seniors felt more entitled to negotiate a grade or other evaluation of their performance on an assignment than college freshmen felt. This finding supports Twenge’s (2006) notion that entitlement beliefs may be fostered by certain aspects of schooling in the United States (e.g., grade inflation). The consequences of holding these entitlement beliefs are still uncertain. For example, if academic entitlement were harmful to a student’s success, researchers may expect seniors to report the lowest level of entitlement, possibly the result of attrition because of failure of students who have a strong sense of entitlement. Our results may suggest that perceived entitlement to negotiate with an instructor may be an adaptive strategy to navigate the college environment. Limitations and Future Directions The present study has some limitations. A limitation in Studies 1 and 2 is that we do not know the consequences, if any, of men reporting significantly more entitlement beliefs than women. It is likely that perceiving oneself as entitled to a high grade and special treatment in a course will result in less effort, maladaptive motivation, ineffective learning strategies, and a lower course grade. Alternatively, negotiating with a professor for a higher grade may be beneficial for some. Future research on academic entitlement should include measures of motivational variables and achievement outcomes. Another limitation of the present study is the disparity in sample sizes between Studies 1 and 2. In Study 2, we found a null effect of time on both entitlement variables, even though mean scores for both men and women increased over


342


the course of the semester. This finding may suggest that students’ entitlement beliefs increase with time spent in college, but at a very small rate. Study 1 provides some empirical support for this claim in that we found that seniors reported more entitlement than juniors, sophomores, and freshmen did, but it was only significantly more entitlement than freshmen did. Another explanation for the null effect may be the modest sample size. Thus, it may be beneficial for future researchers to include a larger sample with more time points to increase power to detect longitudinal trends in entitlement beliefs. A third limitation is that we only examined the effect of gender on students’ entitlement beliefs. We are still uncertain of the role that race and other factors may also play in academic entitlement. Given the struggles the United States has had with educational policy, researchers may find that some White people perceive themselves as more entitled to academic success than members of an underrepresented race do. However, several universities in the United States automatically award extra points toward undergraduate admission for prospective applicants who are minorities. This practice may affect the entitlement beliefs of all students. Future researchers of entitlement in academia should scrutinize the dual roles that race and gender have on academic outcomes. Also, future researchers should investigate the role of legitimate entitlement in academic outcomes. Many students with disabilities are legally entitled to special accommodations in the classroom. It would be interesting to examine the possible influence of years of receiving accommodations on students’ academic entitlement. Attention to the aforementioned issues will illuminate our understanding of the negative and potentially positive effects of perceived entitlement in the academic setting. NOTES 1. Individuals can be clinically diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder (DSM-IV-R; American Psychiatric Association, 2000), or they may be classified at the subclinical level as normal narcissists (e.g., Young & Pinsky, 2006). Because our research and the research that we cite has not been conducted at a clinical level, we use the term narcissism to describe normal narcissism, not the pathological disorder. 2. We also examined—in addition to the gender–entitlement relation—if the gender of faculty affected students’ entitlement beliefs. Of the 18 participating classes, 10 were taught by men. Results from two full HLM models revealed that faculty gender significantly predicted neither between-classes variance in the entitlement expectations or negotiation nor the gender–entitlement slopes. This finding supports previous research showing that college students’ views of male and female college teachers have little effect on their academic beliefs and behavior (Feldman, 1992). AUTHOR NOTES Keith D. Ciani is a doctoral candidate in the educational psychology program at the University of Missouri. His research interests focus on the development of students’ achievement motives, with an emphasis on educational contexts that support or thwart quality motivation. Jessica J. Summers is an assistant professor in the


343

Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Arizona. Her research interests focus on the impact of social context on motivation and learning across several populations. Matthew A. Easter is a doctoral candidate in the educational psychology program at the University of Missouri. His research interests focus on the cognitive factors that influence motivational change and the implementation of technology in the classroom.


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, University of Texas, Austin. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., revised). Washington, DC: Author. Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 29–45. Desmarais, S., & Curtis, J. (1997). Gender differences in pay histories and views on pay entitlement among university students. Sex Roles, 37, 623–642. Desmarais, S., & Curtis, J. (2001). Gender and perceived income entitlement among full-time workers: Analyses for Canadian national samples, 1984 and 1994. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 157–168. Feldman, K. A. (1992). College students’ views of male and female college teachers: Part I. Evidence from the social laboratory and experiments. Research in Higher Education, 33, 317–375. Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Twenge, J. M. (2003). Individual differences in narcissism: Inflated self-views across the lifespan and around the world. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 469–486. Gabriel, M. T., Critelli, J. W., & Ee, J. S. (1994). Narcissistic illusions in self-evaluations of intelligence and attractiveness. Journal of Personality, 62, 143–155. Hoover, E. (2007, March 9). Here’s looking at you, kid: Study says many students are narcissists. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 53. Lombardi, J. V. (2007, September 26). The academic success entitlement. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/blogs/reality_ check/the_academic_success_entitlement Major, B. (1989). Gender differences in comparisons and entitlement: Implications for comparable worth. Journal of Social Issues, 45, 99–115. Major, B. (1993). Gender, entitlement, and the distribution of family labor. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 141–159. Major, B., McFarlin, D. B., & Gagnon, D. (1984). Overworked and underpaid: On the nature of gender differences in personal entitlement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1399–1412. Mansfield, H. C. (2001, April 6). Grade inflation: It’s time to face the facts. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 47. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. (2004). Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling (Version 6.0) [Computer software]. Lincoln, IL: Scientific Software International. Rojstaczer, S. (2003). Grade inflation at American colleges and universities. Retrieved June 20, 2007, from http://www.gradeinflation.com

344


Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled—and more miserable than ever before. New York: Free Press. Young, S. M., & Pinsky, D. (2006). Narcissism and celebrity. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 463–471.


Original manuscript received December 28, 2007 Final version accepted July 11, 2008

��

��

��